Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Ellen Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 1 Nov 2003 20:41:03 -0800:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DEDHeather94) wrote in message
> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>  
> > I don't care what you think of me, to be honest. But all you've shown
> > me is one-liner snideness and rudeness, and it doesn't help when you
> > and the other regulars jump on and say "good one!", and "I told you
> > so".
> 
> Ellen, I think you've been trolling, too.  Your technique is to get into
> an argument with somebody and then wind them up by pretending to address
> their points whilst actually evading them.  One or two posts on, you then
> start feigning exasperation, attributing views to your opponent which
> they've never propounded, and grossly distorting those they have.  These
> techniques are in evidence in the quotes I've not snipped.

This is a particularly strange charge coming from you Alan. I had very
lengthy and to-the-point discussions with you concerning FRAs,
anonymity of rape accusers/accused, and the semantic question about
what to call accusers vs alleged victims. Granted, we didn't agree,
but I was very careful to refrain from misrepresenting what you said.
Of course, short of poring endlessly over prior posts and quoting
everything exactly as said, one is inevitably forced to paraphrase but
I never intentionally reinterpreted what you said in a bad light. I
never tried to turn you into an ogre, in contrast to the likes of
Kolberg who routinely put highly offensive words in my mouth.

I think that you are taking disagreements and innocent attempts to
succinctly paraphrase your comments and turning them into something
malicious. And to talk of someone who wrote very lengthy discussions
about the topics into being a "troll" is a particularly odd charge.
Are you just caught up in the "pile on" mentality that permeates the
regulars on t.r.?

> The real give-away was admiting you were a scientific writer, which
> implies you normally write clearly and accurately.  Yet you don't do so
> here.

I agree that you didn't like what I said. But I challenge you to read
our discussions and still claim that I didn't make my points clearly.
> 
> Actually, I think you troll very well indeed.  You manage to do so
> without using swear words, which puts you a long way above the likes of
> Bob and Sky King.  But why do you troll at all, rather than engaging in
> sincere discussion?  What do you get out of it?

This is another place where you erred before, and I stupidly went
along with it. By repeating the same charges over and over and over,
we found ourselves readressing the exact same points over and over.
This is not only tedious for all, but it tends to make things more
charged toward the end as we tire. I'm going to try to be better about
deleting repeated assertions rather than just re-address them over and
over.

________________________________
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy,
but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher
standard."
--George McGovern