Misleading and sneaky reply from a sneaky person. Trying to present things out of context.
We are on topic. No need to try and escape a full debate.
Are you claiming then that example does not demonstrate clearly what I stated it does?
You are trying to be sneaky AGAIN.
We can observe in the full context of that thread that the initial poster is attacked 3 x with FALSE allegations or Groundless ATTACKS before they respond with FACTUAL accounts of previous behaviors they have in their post histories.
I don't think that this one-purpose Forum for life is not the real world, trolls.
If you continue like this, you are also said to be one of the trolls.
That is to say: people who start a fight or annoyance at the forum, DT, to divert and sow disputes by posting inflammatory and aggressive content, forums, outside the community, with the aim of provoking the reader to display an emotional response, whether you make this fortroll entertainment or certain benefits for you.
the trolling that you mean is: "troll" means you "people who destroy the bitcointalk forum with the aim where the main character posts harass people online and try to infiltrate their circles by posting dirty and negative comments.
Sorry, a little emotional.
Sadly I will be unable to sustain this level of content creation.
You are likely the only one that is sad about this... The rest of us, not so sad!
Sadly I will be unable to sustain this level of content creation.
You are likely the only one that is sad about this... The rest of us, not so sad!
That's code for saying he's constipated, and I would urge him not to consider a laxative but rather seek out another forum to troll.
But I don't take those words of his seriously, though. How many times have trolls and assorted morons said they're going to leave bitcointalk only to stick around and continue to stink up the place? Hopefully scunter sticks to his word in this case.
So let's stay on topic here and establish you can not even be honest in your own thread about finding impartial and objective solutions.
Abusive behavior to o_e_l_e_o is telling the truth it seems.
So to remain on topic. Yes, there should not be any personal attacks (except where vital background information is required for optimal analysis by impartial readers. compelling evidence should be present), but since those calling for an end to the personal attacks, are the same ones attacking peoples trust scores, and their threads when they feel like it (with 0 evidence) then I am not that hopeful.