On Oct 16, 10:16 pm, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > On Oct 16, 7:31 pm, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> >> > On Oct 16, 6:13 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> >> I see that micoshaft funded spliffing asstroturfers are back again.
>
> >> > If "micoshaft" funded spliffing asstroturfers are *back again*, and
> >> > they were gone while Roy wasn't posting, what does that tell you about
> >> > Roy's posts?
>
> >> That asstroturfers want to counter them?
>
> > The thousands of posts that go unreplied to every month disagree with
> > you.
>
> So you're contradicting yourself. First you say they are back again,
> now that Roy's posting, implying that they're back to counter Roy.
>
I never implied that they're back to counter Roy. I implied that there
was a correlation between Roy posting and these so called trolls.
Every time someone complains about Roy's posts, the response is
usually, "Keep up the good work Roy, you're really sticking it to
those trolls." Well if they aren't even around when he doesn't post
and one of the purpose of his posts is to drown out trolls (his words,
not mine), then really shouldn't he not post? Or perhaps does he have
some other motive for posting?
|
|
