XPost: alt.writing, demon.local, alt.culture.usenet   
   XPost: freeserve.chat   
   From: la_maline@privacy.net   
      
   "palmer.william"  wrote in   
   news:kmkqb.5019$Z84.2447@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:   
   > "La Maline"  wrote in message   
   > news:Xns942AD783C2ED3baudelaire@never-makes-sense...   
   >> "Darkside"  wrote in   
   >> news:bobnko$6da$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:   
   >>   
   >> > As a few people have pointed out my behaviour may have seemd a   
   >> > little erratic lately   
   >> > good reason for this mind   
   >> > A lot of my work revolves around human behaviour and i study it   
   >> > quite a lot to gain a better understading of this somewhat complex   
   >> > subhect   
   >> >   
   >> > So i set up a little test   
   >> > With the current flood of unintresting posts from unfamiliar names   
   >> > in here i thought id get rather over aggresive and see who bit back   
   >> > first   
   >   
   > Let me enlighten you.   
      
   Rather a challenge when he reads the follow-ups from the group you removed.   
      
   > In the first place, contrary to some of the   
   > twaddle you read on the matter, there is nothing at all wrong with   
   > responding to a troll.   My rule of thumb--and it has rarely failed   
   > me-- is "always write a more entertaining post than the person you are   
   > responding to, be the person a troll or anyone else."   If you can   
   > do that successfully, you can't go wrong responding to ANYONE.   
   >> >   
   >> > It would appear the so called "trolls" who slag off fs chat bit   
   >> > first ..   
   >   
   > Please excuse me for removing the "chat" group, but I never   
   > use chat.   
   >   
   >> > straight away in fact and hardly any one batted an eyelid   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> > Maybe the folks here sussed out   
   >   
   > I thought "sussed out," meant "pigged out," (ate far more than usual).   
   > That makes sense, doesn't it?--since a "sus" is  pig.   Maybe you   
   > mean it like, "sniffed out," the way our porcine friends are always   
   > sniffing around.   Interesting dialect expression.    Quaint.   
   >   
   >> >what i was doing maybe they couldnt care   
   >> > less   
   >> > Point is the "High and mighty" types bit first and failed to see   
   >> > any of the sarcasm or irony   
   >> >   
   >> > Very intresting indeed   
   >> >   
   >> > Also those in question would do well to note whats on phil kyles   
   >> > website . he admits he annoys people because he can here and no one   
   >> > is really going to do bugger all , unlike in real life where he   
   >> > would probably meet someone who really took offence. Likwise with   
   >> > my recent postings   
   >>   
   >> You have an overwhelmingly unjustified sense of self-importance.   
   >> Listen up.  This is Usenet and you are words on a screen, nothing   
   >> more.   
   >   
   >                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >   
   >   
   > Gee, where did you pick that one up?  Actually, I can't claim I was   
   > the first person in Usenet to use that particular expression.   
   > According to Google, I was the FOURTH person to use it.   When I first   
   > used the expression in Fall, 1997, two other posters had used it   
   > already in 1997, and a third, apparently the first one to use it in   
   > Usenet, used it in 1996.   Before that, there is no record of anyone   
   > posting, "you are words on a screen,"   Even so, I will point that   
   > that all three uses prior to mine were in groups I don't read, so it   
   > was clearly a case of simutaneous invention, which "La Maline"   
   > can't claim since I have used the expression quite a few times   
   > in writing groups since 1997, as Google makes plain.   
   >   
   > Actually, it is a perfectly logical expression to use.   While of   
   > course we are all MORE than words on a screen in many   
   > important ways, most of us will never be more than words   
   > on a screen to one another.   Yes, I have noticed some   
   > writing group types like to hobnob with one another, fine.   
   > That has nothing to do with what is most important in   
   > Usenet, which is what I call swimming in the thoughtstream   
   > (a phrase first used on this planet in my posting of March 3, 1999,   
   > BIG HANDS SHAPE HARLAN) which means minds interacting   
   >  with, and being influenced by, one another.   
   >   
   > So, you may be trolling me, but you are simply another bag   
   > of grist for the colossal mill  (and if you don't know who used   
   > "grist for the colossal mill" first, see Google)..   
   >   
   >   
   > accept no cheap imitations   
   > alt.genius.bill-palmer   
   > --firing posts at random from a window in an office upstairs   
   > from rec.arts.prose   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)