Post by Skyfire
I trolled a troll this night. It was a good night.Might post the conversation as well.
Wut?
Troll Trolling is one of the best feelings ever
As for the conversation, the context was that he was trolling Linkin Park fanboiz on YouTube. So I decided to message him to see how trollable he himself was.
I have to hand it to you, you have them trolled, well and good.
It's kind of sad how often they type me large paragraphs to try and make a point.
I think it's kind of sad that you have no better thing to do than troll them, but as they didn't listen to me when I said "Don't feed the troll," I suspect I would have to call them the inferiors here.
I am doing other things while I do this.
Did I say you weren't?
"I think it's sad that you have nothing better to do that to troll them."
Certainly sounds like you are saying that.
Certainly sounds like I didn't say that. Your interpretation of what I said is quite lacking, in fact.
Actually yes, it does sound like you said that. Just because you fail at English, it doesn't mean you have to blame me for it. Nice try though, kiddo.
Your English comprehension... sigh. Want me to go over it with you?
I think it's sad that you have nothing better to do that to troll them.
This equates to:
"Whatever else you may be doing isn't better, a more worthy pursuit of time, than this."
Good sir, I blame you for failing English because that is what you did here. Sorry. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Fix your sentence fragment before you start insulting other peoples English.
And no, that's you trying to change the interpretation to try and make me look stupid. Nice try though, kiddo.
Hmm? I insulted your comprehension, not your grammEr. (Capitalized and misspelled for emphasis.)
And no, that would be you trying to get out of the trap I set. Sorry.
Further, your argument is flawed and your assumption baseless. You have no knowledge (and couldn't have had knowledge) of what I set out to do with the statement that lured you so nicely.
Again, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Sorry kiddo, but until you learn to fix your sentence fragments, I'm not going to take you seriously.
A non sequitur! Until you stop employing such fallacies in your argument, I'm not going to take you seriously. Which is proper, by definition of a fallacy.
I'll just throw in that you've been using a bit of ad hominem as well, but so have I, so I'll leave that to lie, I think.
Come again soon!
Well those are all lies, but nice try on trying to ignore the fact that you fail at English.
By the way, I'm also not a "troll" as you call me. I have given plenty of reasons for why I think Linkin Park sucks, and it seems that no LP fans can counter those points.
You either a) don't understand what a non sequitur is, b) don't like that you were out-logic'ed if you do, c) don't care that you were out-logic'ed, or d) fail.
I suspect it may be simply a mix of b, c, and d, though I could be wrong.
Personally, I would much rather be a master of logic than a master of English. Because I can then extend my mastery of logic to all languages. Can you do the same for English? Hmm? But suit yourself for being the inferior!
As for lies, I'm sorry, but what I said was the truth. Your claim was simply a straight up ad hominem. "Oh teh noez, you lieded." is simply answered with a "lolwut?"
Care to try again?
Would you like to look up the definition of a troll? Because we could do that; we would likely find that you fit the definition perfectly!
Or I'll look it up, just for you (from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll ): "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Your arguments are off-topic, as the topic is about that video in particular. They are both controversial and inflammatory because of their location. Which, all those considered, also makes them irrelevant. Your purpose in doing so is simply to provoke them into emotional response.
Nope, you're a troll. A right troll, none-the-less... but those are the worst kind, as they see fit to spew their trollery in as many places as possible.
Really, if you think Linkin Park sucks, start a blog about it. People might actually read that with more than a grain of salt!
Nope, all lies once again. LP fans are all the same... this is the part where you say "When did I say I was an LP fan?" Although it's pretty clear that you are from all the whining you've been doing.
When did I say my purpose was to provoke them into an emotional response?
That would be an ad hominem, a non sequitur, a red herring, AND a converse fallacy of accident, all rolled into one!
Really, I'm trolling you because you trolled someone else, and you're becoming irrational because you don't know why.
As to calling my logic "whining"... that makes me sad. Really? The best you could come up with is "whining"? You want to look the definition up on that one as well?
True.
But one point an argument does not make! (See if the grammarian in you can make sense of that one!) And, fortunately for me, you have to defeat the argument, not the solitary point, as that lone point does not sit at the bedrock of my argument.
Can you disprove the others assertions? Would you like to try? Because those are all truthful. It would be /really/, /really/ hard to prove me wrong there. Really.
Well the only off-topic posts I've made are the ones where I've corrected someone's spelling or grammar. But even with the spelling errors, if their post has a point, I will address it, but usually most of them are just swearing at me or insulting me in some way, which, by wikipedia's definition, would make them a troll. Since their posts are inflammatory, controversial, off-topic, and are done to to evoke an emotional response out of me. So do you consider people who bash me to be trolls?
Are my posts controversial? Yes, they can be, but just because it is controversial, that doesn't automatically make someone a troll. Only if they are done with the intent to get an emotional response out of people would that make me a troll, which you cannot prove.
Are my posts inflammatory? No, I am just criticizing Linkin Park and their song. Criticism =/= inflammatory.
Oh wow, another sentence fragment.
Oh wow, another non sequitur.
Really, you can go on about sentence fragments all day until you're blue in the face. That doesn't change the fact that you are quite simply wrong.
To be honest, you're just like the LP fanboiz, excepting the fact that you 1) don't like LP, and 2) can spell and grammar correctly. (WTF, I just used grammar as a verb? THAT'S NOT ALLOWED!111!1!)
Learn some logic, then try trolling again in the future. It will serve you well.
Let's see, maybe their actions are the ones that are those so-called emotional responses? Hmm?
Actually, wait a minute. You're trying to take the heat of yourself. No, we're not here to argue about their actions. We're here to argue about yours.
The reason you're offtopic and controversial is that you seem to have this belief that Linkin Park sucks.
Fine. I can understand your opinion inasmuch as I disagree with it.
What is not fine is that you spout your opinion in a place where people who like Linkin Park gather to talk about... Linkin Park! Now, this is where the inflammatory part comes in. You post an opinion contrary to the belief popular to that little area of the Internet. By its very nature, such an opinion will cause a rise in those who disagree with it... and you're doing it in a very conspicuous place and manner, which by definition would be "imflammatory".
I hope you can make the connections in this case yourself.
If you want to soapbox, make a blog, advertise it in all those places which are anti-Linkin Park, and get along with life. Don't go pushing your opinion in faces that don't want to see it, which again, is what makes you inflammatory.
Criticism is good, even healthy to a community, given that it is used well, constructively, and sparingly. Yours fits none of those definitions.
You are a troll, pure and simple. That is what we call these kind of people.
If you want to lose the definition, take your opinion where it wants to be heard.
Oh wow, you certainly didn't proofread that message.
I'm not wrong though.
Your argument lacks substance, and especially, proof.
No, you calling me a troll lacks proof. You are the one who does not carry the burden of proof.
Hmm, getting yourself a little mixed up there? Tripping over the proverbial (but no less imaginary!) feet, I presume?
I'm done for the evening. I hope you'll take my advice to go elsewhere with your rantings, however proper in grammar they may be. I will be personally saddened if you do not, because while being a jackass is fun, every once in a while, it is no less jackassish.
/You/ deserve better. Find other ways and means to communicate your displeasure. Trust me, that will make you a better arguer and a better person as a whole.
Peace.
I'm a great arguer; not one person was able to counter my point about Linkin Park and Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Ok, I lied. I have to respond to this one:
You lost. To me. You failed to answer my points and failed to take apart my arguments.
You're a *!@#poor excuse of an arguer. An arrogant one, to boot.
I'll repeat the gist of my last message: Go somewhere else if you're trying to argue a point. YouTube isn't that place.
Now, I sleep. Good night, !
It was easy.
Now, Hyperspace, tear my argument apart pl0x.