Pledge Of Alegiance !{Sorry If I Spelled It Wrong}

[Annella]

An awful lot of useless words to try and confuse the issue. Thing is, it actually bears my point out. You are smoke and mirrors. I don't say this to be mean or call you names, but you are a bunch of hot air and don't really say anything.

Apparently then, your reading comprehension skills are speculative at best and minimal at worst.  If the English words used confuse you, look them up, (or ask someone who is more literate).  All of the words used to refute your blatant nonsense have meanings attached to them and falsely characterizing them as "hot air" is merely an attempted empty insult.

Oh, and I guess your pointed reply to my intelligence is not an attempted insult? You are so full of yourself! Everything you write is blatant nonsense and I'm not the only one who has commented on your ability to fill a page full of big words but not say anything worth saying, but confusion.

[Annella]

Trolls be trollin'...

Now wait a minute, you post to me, not the other way around. In fact Falconer you have always answered me with some abrasive, sarcastic, reply when I wasn't even talking to you, so who's trolling?

Rationally, since he's answering your 'trolling posts', that would be you doing the trolling.  Now, it's entirely possible to 'troll a troll' however, yours was the initiating trolling and now you're complaining because your line snapped off?

Your comprehension skills need sharpening. He answered me, so he had to have trolled the thread in order to answer me. Thing is, he always does without my addressing him. I wasn't the OP either in this thread.

So what you are saying is that he can answer posts in a thread, but when I do, it's trolling? LOL  That's rich! Is that the best you can do?  LOLOLOLOL

Thing is, falconer02 has called other people trolls when he doesn't like their answers in the past also.

[Falconer02]

Now wait a minute, you post to me, not the other way around. In fact Falconer you have always answered me with some abrasive, sarcastic, reply when I wasn't even talking to you, so who's trolling?

I love trolling trolls! Especially the racist ones who believe in witchcraft!

Thing is that falconer02 calls other people trolls when he doesn't like their answers in the past also.

That would be one other person who was equally --if not more-- bonkers.

[Annella]

Now wait a minute, you post to me, not the other way around. In fact Falconer you have always answered me with some abrasive, sarcastic, reply when I wasn't even talking to you, so who's trolling?

I love trolling trolls! Especially the racist ones who believe in witchcraft!

Sticks and stones luv......sticks and stones..........lol

[falcon9]

An awful lot of useless words to try and confuse the issue. Thing is, it actually bears my point out. You are smoke and mirrors. I don't say this to be mean or call you names, but you are a bunch of hot air and don't really say anything.

Apparently then, your reading comprehension skills are speculative at best and minimal at worst.  If the English words used confuse you, look them up, (or ask someone who is more literate).  All of the words used to refute your blatant nonsense have meanings attached to them and falsely characterizing them as "hot air" is merely an attempted empty insult.

Oh, and I guess your pointed reply to my intelligence is not an attempted insult?

You just posted that the reply was useless and confusing to your understanding, (see, it's quoted right up at the top of this posted response). Any lack of comprehension of English on your part is your responsibility, whether you characterize such a lack as insulting or not.

You are so full of yourself!

Another empty, baseless opinion, huh?  And coming from someone who appears to be overflowing with those too!

Everything you write is blatant nonsense ...

That's your 'rebuttal'; an assertion without substantiation?  Another unimpressively unsupported 'opinion', as empty as your prior ones.

and I'm not the only one who has commented on your ability to fill a page full of big words but not say anything worth saying, but confusion.  

I've read the few who have expressed their opinion about being unable to understand reasoned dissent.  Are you suggested that, because there's more than one who possesses your apparently diminished comprehension skills, it makes the language incomprehensible to others?

[Annella]

I've read the few who have expressed their opinion about being unable to understand reasoned dissent.  Are you suggested that, because there's more than one who possesses your apparently diminished comprehension skills, it makes the language incomprehensible to others?

Well......obviously you don't know how to separate your comments from others on this forum so your comprehension is a bit impaired in that area.

In response to your reply: Are you actually that self absorbed with yourself? Take assessment quick before you start kissing yourself in the mirror. Your one of those people who are totally unteachable as they think they know it all. Get a grip man!

[falcon9]

Trolls be trollin'...

Now wait a minute, you post to me, not the other way around. In fact Falconer you have always answered me with some abrasive, sarcastic, reply when I wasn't even talking to you, so who's trolling?

Rationally, since he's answering your 'trolling posts', that would be you doing the trolling.  Now, it's entirely possible to 'troll a troll' however, yours was the initiating trolling and now you're complaining because your line snapped off?

Your comprehension skills need sharpening.

You do realize that little kids have been doing that 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?' troll tactic for years or, don't you?  My comprehension skills are intact, (yours seem to be M.I.A., given your continued demonstrations of their lack in your responses).

He answered me ...

Yes, and here's the significant bit; in order to answer you, you would have to _first_ post a trolling post, (which you did and which he answered).
See, it's a matter of the sequence of events here; first you trolled and then he replied.  

... so he had to have trolled the thread in order to answer me.

That's not how trolling works, (as you are undoubtedly aware, having engaged in it repeatedly).  Responding to a troll isn't trolling unless one is trolling the troll, (which he could be doing or, poking one with a stick).

Thing is, he always does without my addressing him. I wasn't the OP either in this thread.

He does that reply-without-attribution response to many others, (including me).  I don't take it personally however, you do seem to be able to figure out when he's replying to one of your trollings so, you do have at least a vestigal comprehension, (or maybe 'selective' is the more apropos term).

So what you are saying is that he can answer posts in a thread, but when I do, it's trolling? LOL

Nope, I can write what I mean without your assistance.  What I did write was to the effect that "trolling" is nominally an initiating post which is intended, (or an unintended), 'lure' which stirs the pot with some debatable pronouncement.  Answering such posts isn't necessarily trolling, (although one can troll a troll, as it were).  Your responses to the replies constitutes an exchange after the initial trolling post.  Whether or not these subsequent exchanges constitute trolling in and of themselves depends on any reiteration of the initial trolling or, tangential trolling which occurs during the course of such exchanges.


 

Thing is, falconer02 has called other people trolls when he doesn't like their answers in the past also.

Has he?  Then surely you can quote two or three message IDs as examples of this, right?

[falcon9]

I've read the few who have expressed their opinion about being unable to understand reasoned dissent.  Are you suggesting that, because there's more than one who possesses your apparently diminished comprehension skills, it makes the language incomprehensible to others?

Well......obviously you don't know how to separate your comments from others on this forum so your comprehension is a bit impaired in that area.

 

That isn't a matter of "comprehension" of content, it's a function of the forum.  Sometimes I manage to get the comments separated and other times, the same method doesn't seem to work however, I do at least correctly attribute those comments to the people that make them.  Your thinly veiled attempt at a distractive insult has fallen short of the mark.

In response to your reply: Are you actually that self absorbed with yourself?

Do you often engage in such sophistry or, is that question rhetorical?  What aspect of my reply was misunderstood and mangled into self-absorbtion?

Your one of those people who are totally unteachable as they think they know it all. Get a grip man!

Since you mention unteachability; it has been mentioned several times that it is "you're", (as in 'you are'), and not "your", (as in a possessive sense).  Further, I've never claimed to "know it all" so you're, (not "your"), making another one of those false characterizations you seem to favor.

[Falconer02]

Has he?  Then surely you can quote two or three message IDs as examples of this, right?

Actually I will vouch for her (she was right! Call the press! What a rarity to see such a thing!)-- there is one other I had called a troll on several occasions due to many reasons. For instance the user was threatening and wishing me death just for being skeptical of their claims. She was also hanging by a thread since many other users were constantly reporting her for abuse. This person was also admittedly a bit unstable mentally as they had told this part of the forum many times. Their beliefs were constantly changing too-- one day it was evangelical, next pagan, next a freethinker, etc. etc. It was quite obvious that it was a rather odd and unintentional trolling (I think...).  They've been gone for a while now though.

[falcon9]

-- there is one other I had called a troll on several occasions due to many reasons. For instance the user was threatening and wishing me death just for being skeptical of their claims. She was also hanging by a thread since many other users were constantly reporting her for abuse. This person was also admittedly a bit unstable mentally as they had told this part of the forum many times. Their beliefs were constantly changing too-- one day it was evangelical, next pagan, next a freethinker, etc. etc. It was quite obvious that it was a rather odd and unintentional trolling (I think...).  They've been gone for a while now though.

Understood however, the direct assertion made was that you 'call people trolls who disagree with you', (which seemed suspicious to me due to her unintentional and hypocritical self-reference there).  If the other person you referred to did post ever-shifting and contradictory stances, she most likely was trolling and characterizing her as a troll would be accurate.  The accuracy of "Annela's" more general assertion is dubious because it appears to be supported by nothing more than her biased opinion.

[Annella]

Your one of those people who are totally unteachable as they think they know it all. Get a grip man!

Since you mention unteachability; it has been mentioned several times that it is "you're", (as in 'you are'), and not "your", (as in a possessive sense).  Further, I've never claimed to "know it all" so you're, (not "your"), making another one of those false characterizations you seem to favor.

Again you have accused me of insult when you are clearly throwing stones and making assumptions of which you have no knowledge. Bringing that up (again) shows you have nothing more intelligent to add in response, except petty retaliation.  Thing is, I have a dyslexia of sorts. This was explained in another thread. I do it with certain numbers also. Woman and women are other words I transpose among others. This however, has nothing to do with how teachable I am or how much of a grip I have on the English language. Nice try though.

As much as I have enjoyed our banter, my bed awaits and deep sleep beckons. Adieu.........  Please respond however you feel, tomorrow is another day.

[Annella]

The accuracy of "Annela's" more general assertion is dubious because it appears to be supported by nothing more than her biased opinion.

The correct spelling is Annella (two L's).

[falcon9]

Your one of those people who are totally unteachable as they think they know it all. Get a grip man!

Since you mention unteachability; it has been mentioned several times that it is "you're", (as in 'you are'), and not "your", (as in a possessive sense).  Further, I've never claimed to "know it all" so you're, (not "your"), making another one of those false characterizations you seem to favor.

Again you have accused me of insult when you are clearly throwing stones and making assumptions of which you have no knowledge.

Your "know it all" comment is construed as an attempted insult and not merely an accusation.  The reason being that the presumed intention in throwing it is to imply both superiority and condenscension.  That means that it was intended as an insult and not as "throwing stones" by pointing this out.

Bringing that up (again) shows you have nothing more intelligent to add in response, except petty retaliation.

Oh, you meant the "you're/your" grammarical note.  That wasn't specifically retalitory since I was previously unaware of your dyslexia.  I also have a mild form of dyslexia, (you'll see a few "teh" for "the" strewn throughout some of my posts).

Thing is, I have a dyslexia of sorts. This was explained in another thread.

Shocking as the news may be to you, I haven't read every thread in this forum, (nor, every thread you posted in).  As a side benefit, that pretty much puts paid to any false accusations of 'following around' your commentaries.


 

As much as I have enjoyed our banter, my bed awaits and deep sleep beckons. Adieu.........  Please respond however you feel, tomorrow is another day.

One small point; this reply you've posted omitted attribution, (used "

" without author mentioned, rather than "

").  That would cause some unattributed mixture of who said what in your replies.

[falcon9]

The accuracy of "Annela's" more general assertion is dubious because it appears to be supported by nothing more than her biased opinion.

The correct spelling is Annella (two L's).

And, the correct attributions are  "

" for your comments and  "

[Annella]

Uh, you have me quoting something I did not:

Could you please break out what you are saying because everything is so muddled with who said what, that I'm being misquoted. Check again. I'll look at it tomorrow.