1 |
Uwe Thiem <uwix@××××.na> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Monday 31 March 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote: |
4 |
>> Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
5 |
>> > On 30 Mar 2008, at 06:47, Michael Schmarck wrote: |
6 |
>> >> ... |
7 |
>> >> In your world, an aggressor is doing nothing wrong? Do I |
8 |
>> >> understand that right? |
9 |
>> >> ... |
10 |
>> >> Get real. |
11 |
>> > |
12 |
>> > When you're describing someone who has annoyed you on the |
13 |
>> > Internet as an "aggressor" it probably means you need to take a |
14 |
>> > break for a while |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> How else would you describe Alan in his first post in the thread? |
17 |
>> Troll? Would that fit better? |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Hello, people! Calm down, will you? |
20 |
|
21 |
No problem. But if people "provoke" a reaction, I've got to "defend" |
22 |
myself and my position. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Michael, if you scan past posts by Alan, you will find out that he is |
25 |
> full of jokes - good ones and some not so good. He is neither aan |
26 |
|
27 |
Here he certainly made one of the "not so good ones". |
28 |
|
29 |
> aggressor, nor a troll. Just full of - sometimes weird - humour. |
30 |
|
31 |
Agreed. |
32 |
|
33 |
> He was pulling your leg; that's different from trolling. |
34 |
|
35 |
Yes, it is. But here you're saying it as well. *HE* was doing |
36 |
something, which provoked some sort of reaction. Maybe my reaction |
37 |
was not what he wanted go get (that's what he's saying at least |
38 |
and it's also what I believe to be true). But, you know, if |
39 |
he wouldn't have done what he did, we wouldn't have this mess. |
40 |
|
41 |
To a certain degree, this mess may also be my fault, but it's |
42 |
absolutely not only my fault. Alan is at least as "guilty" as I am. |
43 |
|
44 |
You're right though - "aggressor" and/or "troll" aren't the right |
45 |
words. Couldn't and still can't think of better ones though. |
46 |
|
47 |
Michael |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |