On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Reeza! wrote:
At 12:14 AM 9/27/98 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
CSapronett@aol.com (note: AOL.COM -- LOL!) wrote:
My only regret is that I wont get to watch you all burn in hell !!!
I see. Would you mind elaborating? We are going to burn in hell because...? We don't use AOL? We like our privacy? We use cryptosystems that you'll never understand in your life time? Because we know how to use (and create) remailers?
Don't bother, it is a troll.
Not a very original, or even interesting one either.
Whenever these people troll for flames here they get them one way or another. Then it seems Merrill always tries to take the moral high ground and show us all his bleeding heart and tell us how we should embrace the AOL idiots and cherish them. The AOLers get triple effect that way. I don't think Merrill ever misses a chance to defend AOL and attack anybody who attacks them. About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part about how the posts were classified and sends back some vague flame accusing the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes the entire thing back to the list. I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are funny.
<<Heavily snipped to allow for those who don't like it otherwise.>>
Whenever these people troll for flames here they get them one way or another. Then it seems Merrill always tries to take the moral high ground and show us all his bleeding heart and tell us how we should embrace the AOL idiots and cherish them.
1. As a matter of fact, I do try to take the moral high ground -- in all things. Sorry, it was how I was raised and I do not intend to swith to seeking the immoral low ground. 2. I have Never said to embrace and cherish the idiots from AOL. Just that some of the actions I have seen are much closer to the immoral low ground.
I don't think Merrill ever misses a chance to defend AOL and attack anybody who attacks them.
I do not mean to Defend AOL except from misinformation -- BTW some of the characteristics attributed to AOL and its software show a great deal of clueneediness on the part of the "authors" or a need for reaquaintance with the truth if the folk actually have a clue and deciuded to spread "other stuff" instead. OTOH I do try to defend the innocents be they from AOL or elsewhere from the repercussions of the spamming scum that (among other things) started the whole sixdegres episode.
About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part about how the posts were classified
I read his classification criteria closely, and read the results of the classification process.
and sends back some vague flame accusing the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes the entire thing back to the list.
Then commented that he had not followed his own criteria.
I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are funny.
If funny is all you want, may I recommend rec.humor.funny and, in case you are up on no current events but Clinton, rec.humor.funny.reruns. And to the brilliant person seeking muff diving pics, gee send a real address and we'll see what we can do. (At least he didn't want it for pre-muff variety.) PHM
participants (2)
-
Anonymous -
Paul H. Merrill