In article <hpl9lo$dmh$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
>
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2627f07176f2fb6298a299@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> > In article <hpl8jl$a6i$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
> >>
> >> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.2627ea48fde8edaf98a298@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> >> > In article <hpl6ef$2n1$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
> >> >> You used the wikipedia definition of Intenet troll to back up your
> >> >> premise
> >> >> about off-topic posts... that definition includes the idea that
> >> >> calling
> >> >> anyone a troll would also apply the definition to their bent towards
> >> >> posting
> >> >> off-topic posts...
> >> >>
> >> >> Meaning.. the application of the term troll ... would include the part
> >> >> of
> >> >> off-topic posts ... would also be highly subjective and could be taken
> >> >> just
> >> >> as equally by others as an on-topic post.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > To do as you suggest you would have to ignore the first parts that I
> >> > posted, defining what is OFF-TOPIC based on the groups name/topic.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for showing, based on your last line, that his posts follow the
> >> > definition of "off-topic" as well as his own suggestion that chaos is
> >> > permitted because he wants it and doesn't care about the standards or
> >> > rules.
>
>
> >> No.. by using the wikipedia definition, you open the door for discounting
> >> your premise because the definition is subjective.
>
>
> > Hardly, you discounted the definitions of "Off-Topic" because you don't
> > like the definition of "Troll", the intent of "Troll" was to show that
> > trolls often post off-topic, but you can't dismiss that the continued
> > posts he's made are off-topic.
>
> I discounted the definition of *Off-Topic* because you used the wikipedia
> definition of internet troll which includes that term within the definition
> of *internet Troll*. If you were to use a different source that does not
> have that addition *Usage* section that says the definition is *subjective*,
> then I would not have a premise to challenge you.
>
> > Off-Topic is not subjective.
> >
>
> Yes it is subjective...

No, it's not subjective - if it's not about (in this group) ANTI-VIRUS
then it's off-topic by clear definition.

> Have you ever does this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_Topic
> It is a common courtesy to mark a new off-topic posting or email by
> beginning it with "OT"[citation needed] - for example in a forum discussing
> the Linux operating system someone might post: "OT: Wow, did you feel that
> earthquake?".

Yep, I've made the OT notation in the subject, to let others know it was
OT, but, in decades of Usenet use, I can count the number of off-topic
threads I've started on my fingers.

> If you don't, yet you claim to label others as posting off-topic
> material,
> wouldn't that make every post subjective that you consider to be off-topic
> since you also post off-topic? I've never seen anyone do this, yet, I've
> many many claims about off-topic material and added notations that people
> should begin new threads or take it elsewhere, yet, no one ever does.

Notice that this group is alt.comp.ANTI-VIRUS?

So, to address your OT lesson - why have you not mentioned this to BD?
He's been posting OT in this news group and many others, for many posts,
but he's not marking them OT, not started a new thread with OT, not
taking it somewhere else?


--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)