posted on May 26, 2001 01:24:46 AM new
And this one:
"Yes, many animals have no defence(s) against cats. Mice, squirrels, even a slow-moving possum. But what defence(s) does any animal have against Man, and Man's never-ending quest to subjugate this planet? We're destroying ourselves, and a few wild cats aren't going to make a big difference. Not even KRS' laughable nightmare scenario".
Aside the obvious insult in KRS' laughable..blah,blah, this exhibits a rather large lack of knowledge of the possum and the squirrel. Since it goes to his point, perhaps he should be made aware that no cat has much chance of catching a squirrel and no cat had better attack a possum if the cat wishes to live.
posted on May 26, 2001 01:44:49 AM new
The idea that I would start this thread with the intent of drawing in KRS is silly. He maintains 10 threads at any given moment in this forum, which I do not participate in. Another poster observed earlier in this thread that KRS is "fishing for conflict." If I wished to confront KRS, I wouldn't have to look far for his posts.
No big deal. After posting here for two years, I guess I've seen most posters' tricks. Anyway, regarding possums, my cat killed one once.
posted on May 26, 2001 02:03:32 AM newSpaz, it's funny because when we had this discussion about accusing posters of being trolls, I raised the same issue with Diana that you just did. Odd you've forgotten that.
I think KRS is getting out on thin ice. First he said Diana made the distinction between troll and trolling (which is incorrect), then he said "Diana would never say anything like that." So, which is it?
I'm sorry I can't respond to your reply, Ken, because I took the moderator's advice and put you on ignore. I can't guarantee it will last, because I find your posts fascinating, in a train wreck kind of way. More than that, I can't say. Wouldn't be prudent.
posted on May 26, 2001 02:09:21 AM newSpaz, it's funny because when we had this discussion about accusing posters of being trolls, I raised the same issue with Diana that you just did.
What channel are you watching, twinsoft? I didn't raise any issue with Diana. I simply commented that the distinction you attributed to Diana seemed uncharacteristic of her -- my way of saying that I found your assertion suspect. Not the first time, certainly not the last.
posted on May 26, 2001 02:15:19 AM new
For the record. When I said "Fishing for conflict krs?" I was making an observation in the form of a question. Twinsoft read that accurately, if others didn't... well they just didn't.
posted on May 26, 2001 02:19:47 AM new
Gee, Spaz, not to be rude, but am I not being clear? I raised the same issue that you did. I said, I raised the issue. I didn't say you raised the issue with Diana.
Anyway, this thread has been exciting, but I must get up early in the A.M. 'Kind of reminds me of the good old days. Remember them?
posted on May 26, 2001 02:22:51 AM new
How is it that twinsoft is able to comment on my posts in:
"First he said Diana made the distinction between troll and trolling (which is incorrect), then he said "Diana would
never say anything like that." So, which is it?"
and at the same time claim that "'m sorry I can't respond to your reply, Ken, because I took the moderator's advice and put you on ignore."?
For your edification, Marty, the situation loosely refered to here is one in which I had called twinsoft a troll and was issued an informal warning for that. While twinsoft went about crowing over his having brought that about I appealed successfully on the grounds that a previous moderator had set a policy that to so call someone was OK. Diana, in removing my warning made the specification in thread that from that point onward the use of the word 'troll' directly defining another member would not be allowed, but that generalizing a manner of posting as 'trolling' would be. Twinsoft was quite distraught at that result, and I suppose that these alterations are somewhat understandable as denials of very traumatic incidences in life often are.
Now, I'd like to know how it is that twinsoft is allowed to continue to address me by name off topic as he just did in:
"I'm sorry I can't respond to your reply, Ken, because I took the moderator's advice and put you on ignore. I can't guarantee it will last, because I find your posts fascinating, in a train wreck kind of way. More than that, I can't say. Wouldn't be prudent"
posted on May 26, 2001 02:26:11 AM new
Sorry twinsoft, but you're wrong again.
Spaz, it's funny because when we had this discussion about accusing posters of being trolls, I raised the same issue with Diana that you just did.
In the sentence above (perhaps unwittingly), you state that you raised an issue and that I raised an issue. "that you just did" signifies that I performed the same action you attributed to yourself (when in fact I engaged in no such action).
If that's not what you meant, then I suppose it can be blamed on your shoddy sentence structure. But whether you meant it or not, that's how it came out.
