Kayoz
Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hanny
I would not attempt to compete with you in your chosen field of epertise. I pointed out you fit all 4 definitions of a Troll, with your style and content, and everyone fits yours when they meerly post good natured OT banter.
You're using your psychic powers again? Somehow you know that the other posts were "good natured OT banter", while mine was evil and malicious. You're able to divine the intent and purpose of the other posters? Sorry, but that's nothing more than delusion - you believe yourself to be infallible in divining the thoughts of others - and somehow that justifies your delusional statement.
Delusion. It's a clear sign of mental illness. See a psychiatrist. Now.
Interesting, isn't it - how you can read my mind, but you can't SPELL. There's a nifty little thing called a "spell checker" - get one. It'll help disguise your dismal lack of education.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hanny
The difference is between "the" and "a" that confuses you, since your wanted to control the definition to fit what you wanted to argue on, despite that showing yourself to be a blatent Troll.
...
Indded, which is why Wikki is rarely used to cite, except Trolls and children who have yet to be taught how to cite.
You have interesting choices in definitions of "troll". Try this one - "lack of hard evidence about any therapy equals "DANGER"." - which makes any sceptic who questions the effectiveness of a snake-oil or homoeopathic remedy, a troll. Anyone who intrudes on your delusional fantasy is a "troll". Anyone who disagrees with you is a "troll". Your other source claims to know the psychological characteristics of most trolls - yet offering NO evidence to support his claims - while unsurprisingly claiming a position of superiority over anyone who challenges his (unfounded) statements.
Since you accept his definition and statements - go right ahead and challenge the wiki definition, and see how far it gets with the rest of the community. Or are you too much of a coward - and only accept definitions which are cooked up by some blogger, and is not subject to ANY editorial review?
Go on - it would be a giggle to watch. Go on and demonstrate to the wikipedia community your wisdom and intelligence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hanny
Im spot on with mine, of you sonny, and your reading and replying to something i did not post meerly reafirms it.
Didn't post? WTF? You're denying posting in the "Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory" thread? Take a gander at it - it's the thread where you - or someone masquerading as you - posted COMPLETE BOLLOCKS, NONE of which was correct.
1. You don't know DW
2. You don't cite ANY reliable sources for ANY of your statements.
3. You repeatedly claim divine/psychic knowledge of others' motivations and thoughts.
Thus...
You're a delusional idiot who talks ****e.
See a psychiatrist. You very likely would benefit greatly from lithium or perhaps thorazine.
|
Printable Version
RE: ETA on expac? - 
RE: ETA on expac? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread