Because those few "troll backers" also enjoy trying to assume the contradictory position just for fun. They can relate.
Some people love to use the phrase "elicit a response," which of course is the definition of the word "communication." The phrase never elicits the response that the accuser desires, because it just leaves the accusee befuddled. If you want to elicit a response from accusing someone of wanting to elicit a response, you would be better served by explaining in each instance just what was wrong in that instance with wanting to elicit a response. Translation: When your claimed advantage by numbers demonstrably fails, profess superiority over the majority. What I meant was that Mixum's 2 posts were ordinary and nothing to be appalled about. The 2 posts were just an official reason for a decision made before they existed. A day later, I see that readers might think I was appalled at Denny for being appalled, or something. Too late to correct the reader's impression, but there it is anyway. I wasn't appalled at Denny or the ban--I was sarcastically casting doubt on Denny's pretending to be appalled. Put this in your Urban Dictionary: disingenuous appallagement. I'll add that this board is far more intelligently moderated than ESPN. I always thought that some anonymous teenager moderated 50 ESPN boards by himself, pushing random buttons to delete posts while playing his video game. It was very random.
I've noticed this in your other posts. You like to speak in the purple royal "We." Instead of the transparent attempt to intimidate with a false majority, why not just honestly speak for yourself.
Out of curiousity, who are these "some people"? The first time I could recall seeing the phrase round these parts was in this very thread when PapaG used it to call me a troll: Just to be thorough, I did a quick search of the forum for the word "elicit". I couldn't find many instances of the phrase used in an accusatory context -- only a post by some guy named BGrantFan accusing blazerboy of being a troll. Curious.
When they make the word 'elicit' illicit, only the illicit will use 'elicit'. How much response could an illicit woodchuck elicit, if an illicit woodchuck could chuck norris? barfo
I am the self-elected envoy of the "Ban all Trolls" club here at S2, and on behalf of the BaT club, we don't like you very much. Didn't you say you were going to leave months ago, never to return?
Could it be? Could it really? Could . . . it? BGrantFan may very well be PapaG! Maybe? Nah . . . it's just too crazy.
So you're saying BGrantFan is Clark Kent and PapaG is . . . SuperArguingJustForTheSakeOfArguingIsFunMan?
That reminds of this. I always have about 10 items waiting in queue for my signature, and one that's been there for a month or two is I know that I speak for everyone when I say that as for me, I don't like you. Actually you'll never find these exact quotes in the search function because I, uh, slightly improve the original posts I find. So much so that, okay, I am pretty much the author of them. I think that for that one, someone wrote to someone, "No one likes you" and I "evolved" it. Finally an opportunity has arisen to apologize for damaging your cheer when I hung that possibility over you. I was going to leave when I reached 3500 posts, but I fell for the sad look on your avatar face, so I changed it to 35,000 posts. I can't compromise any more because that's tentatively firm in the submitted budget.
We non-moderators have a couple of semi-secret clubs too, but I think I'm allowed to mention the MLHftM Club, though not what it stands for. Suffice it to say that mods should like me because I'm the moderating influence there. You are in no danger as long as I stick around.
The Elders just voted you out for telling! You are disgusting! Begone and turn in your laundered cone hood if your want your deposit back.
Let's not make him the new forum scapegoat. I'd rather we just occasionally scoffed instead of focusing all derision towards him.
