VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, May 08, 09:05:15pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wednesday, March 03, 06:22:26pm
Author: RW
Author Host/IP: cust-107.db3broadband.com / 216.177.117.107
Subject: By what authority do you decide for all the definition of any given word?
In reply to: ST 's message, "I did read what you wrote. You're wrong." on Wednesday, March 03, 07:45:44am

>The fact remains that "Dash" and Queer intentionally
>start fights for the fun of it, especially when they
>are losing a debate.

They may intentionally flame certain folks for the fun of it, in addition to posting on other topics. Why not? What's wrong with it? Is there any rule in the R&R against flaming someone? Nope. Does that make them trolls? Nope. See the definition. If it did, then you'd be a troll too. So then what is the basis of your objection? It's like you're jumping in a pool and then complaining because you're getting wet.

>That makes them trolls, and no matter how many
>dictionary definitions you pull out

I only pulled one out, the correct one, the authoritative definition of "troll", as recorded at alt.urban.folklore and many net lore faqs around the net.

It's pretty clear to me now that you're so hung up on this "Troll" word because in order to show your superiority and win this fight, you need to demean Queer & Dash. And right now, the only way you've got left of doing that is to re-define a word to make it fit your agenda against them. Argument by Re-Definition is pretty lame, Scott, and transparent. What stuns me is that you actually think you have the right to go around, re-defining words willy-nilly to suit yourself, while expecting that everyone must unquestioningly accept your new definitions as if they came from God. Well, they don't Scott. That's why your whole "troll" debacle isn't working out for you.

>many people on
>the Net recognize that type of poster as a troll.

No, they don't. Is this supposed to be some sort of defense? "many"? How many? "People"? what people? who are they? Any names? Are these people informed of the correct definition of "troll"? Or are they on the same mission as you are? See the authoritative definition, Scott. Wrong is wrong.

>Queer, desperate for revenge for all the times I
>proved him a liar beyond a shadow of a doubt, is
>frantically trying to label me a "liar" for pointing
>this out.

Sorry, Scott, but the above is only your own self-serving conjecture. Queer has continually made a puppet out of you. That's what I have observed. You've still not managed to grow up enough to figure out when you're being taunted and how to deal with it.

RW

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.