On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 01:20:26 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 8 =C9=EF=FD=ED, 21:00, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackr... / googlemail.com>
> > > Has anyone asked *how* he'd react? =20
>=20
> Why should they ask? It's much more fun to let the paranoia do the

In other words, you mention laws that seem relevant (until I do five minute=
s=20
of research), and that you'll have to "take action".

You see this as "not a threat", yet you admit, right here, that you don't=20
clarify things because it's "more fun to let paranoia do the..." something.=
=20
What, do the work of convincing us that it's a legal threat?

It seems pretty clear that your intention was for people to interpret this =
as=20
a legal threat. I see only two possible interpretations: Either you actuall=
y=20
do intend to threaten (or at least intimidate) people with the force of law=
,=20
or you only make it seem as though you would do so because it's fun to see =
how=20
people react.

So, either you are genuinely making legal threats, or you are by definition=
 a=20
troll. Now that is fun.

> > > I'm curious about what sort of
> > > reaction is even possible in this case.
>=20
> There are several options, but you cannot uncover them.
>=20
> I react already, but until they realize how, it'll be too late.

Well, that's ominous. Looks like you've dropped from legal threats to vague=
,=20
unspecified threats. I'm quaking in my little boots.

Here's the funniest part:

> > It's buried in the thread, but Ilias threatens (emptily, so far) to
> > sue whoever is pointing out his trollish nature.
>=20
> So much miss-information in just one sentence - just fascination!

I suppose some of it might be, but it seems pretty obvious that either you =
do=20
make exactly those threats, or you are exactly a troll. At least one of the=
se=20
things is true, as you've demonstrated here.

> But now it's really time to close this thread.

I might exit it as well, though. Ilias is far less productive to talk to th=
an=20
the most clueless newbie, the most diehard religious fundamentalist, or the=
=20
most stubbornly dogmatic zealot of any kind. What makes him so frustrating =
is=20
that despite initiating the conversation (by, for example, asking a questio=
n),=20
he tends to outright dismiss any responses, rather than actually argue agai=
nst=20
them.

Most of his responses, and nearly all of the responses to anything I wrote,=
=20
fall into these categories:

 - Unfounded assertions.
 - "Summarizing" (read: strawmanning) messages with little sentence fragmen=
t=20
summaries, and then either ignoring it or responding to the strawman.
 - Telling us what to do or how to respond, as if he owns the group or thre=
ad.
 - Threats.
 - TL;DR.

There's also the most recent, isolated case of sarcastically repeating my=20
message without once pointing out what makes it so ridiculous.

Every now and then, perhaps every five or ten messages, I actually get a=20
response to my point, and it's a fantastically poor response -- like earlie=
r=20
in this thread where he actually responded, once, to my observation that th=
e=20
Wikipedia article seems to be removed for notability reasons, rather than=20
personal attack. The response was to take a quote from the page I linked to=
,=20
out of context.

When I put it back in context, he gets sarcastic and reminds me that he=20
doesn't take me seriously, and we're back to this crap. So there's almost a=
=20
discussion going on, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just impossible.

I doubt his response to this message will be any different. In fact, I'd be=
t=20
money he doesn't read this far -- TL;DR again. The killfile option is=20
definitely looking more attractive all the time.