4 ms·
Yes, I know what you meant. I was being facetious, as I don't approve of the implication that 'trolls' are somehow fundamentally different from other people. Th
by Retra 12y ago
Yes, I know what you meant. I was being facetious, as I don't approve of the implication that 'trolls' are somehow fundamentally different from other people. There is no law of nature that says "if someone is a troll, they will never be happy unless others are unhappy." That's not a fact, and I'm not willing to pretend it is.
Either way, I've already given you a potential solution to that problem, and I see no reason to elaborate further. Use your imagination.
- breischl 12y agoWhen I was writing my previous comment I was wondering if I was being trolled. Too bad I was right.
- Retra 12y agoOh, I see what you were saying. You were saying that you can know everything there is to know about a person from a few posts on the internet. No wonder you believe in trolls. But If I were to follow that line of reasoning, I would be forced to conclude that your incompetence here is simply an innate part of your being. But I don't believe that, even if you think I should. So try to do a little better, ok?
- breischl 12y agoYou're the only one here who seems to believe that "troll" is an indelible and unchanging character trait. I never said or implied that, and my point does not require it to be the case. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could actually believe that, which is why I'm fairly certain you're trolling me. But I suppose it's possible that you're not particularly perceptive. By the way, you still haven't mentioned your magical way to satisfy the conditions "X" and "Not X" (ie, "constantly changing" and "unchanging") at the same time.