Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Oct 2011 00:02 UTC
Apple On its website, Apple has just confirmed that its co-founder and former CEO, Steve Jobs, has passed away at age 56. After bringing the company back from the brink of bankruptcy and turning it into one of the world's most succesful technology companies, Jobs lost the battle with pancreatic cancer.
Thread beginning with comment 492419
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by sorpigal on Mon 10th Oct 2011 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

"Today is no different from yesterday.
It is to the Jobs family and friends. "
Did you miss the part where I covered them later?

Or do you have no compassion?

I have compassion for them, not for comment posters (and readers) here, who have no connection.

Troll is a very subjective term. Care to define it?

Trolling in this case is used by analogy to the meaning from which the "internet troll" is derived:

3: a fisherman's lure that is used in trolling; "he used a
spinner as his troll"

So sayeth wordnet. I could have as easily said "Reading through the comments" or "perusing" or whatever and meant the same thing.

some could argue your mirror holds the image of a classic troll.

Wrong. Some could argue that people posting here saying bad things about Steve Jobs are trolls. While some could argue that I was trolling, in its modern internet-troll sense, some people would be very off base. I was objecting to censorship in the name of the principle of not speaking ill of the dead, a principle which I think is far more harmful than beneficial. If you wish call to objecting to a commonly-held practice on the grounds that it is asinine and unhelpful trolling, so be it. I didn't say anything designed to inflame comment, I simply stood up and registered the dissenting opinion when Thom posted his side. I think that it is fair to do so and that no further comment from either side is required. I understand why he took what action he did, and cannot say he was certainly wrong to do so, but lest it be thought that his stance met with unanimous approval I registered the opposing viewpoint for the record. That is all.

"Proximity to death does not change facts or opinions.
Being a member of the human race, rather than an animal, pretty much does mean that most people - love or hate Jobs, have at least some decency and respect. "
Sorry, I can't parse any sense out of that. What do animals have to do with this? Are you saying that most people love or hate jobs because we are human? Are you saying that most people have at least some decency and respect? What part of this do you think is disagreeing with me?

But being cruel for the sake of making yourself feel self important, well that speaks greater volumes.

In what place did I advocate being cruel for any reason? At what point was I cruel for any reason? If you could identify either case, can you show cause that it was for the purpose of "making myself feel self important"? You cannot, because I never did these things and my intent was not this and is not likely to have been mistaken for this by a reasonable observer.

In fact, what I objected to was the deletion of statements of fact and opinion which merely cast the deceased in a negative light. This is so far from what you're accusing me of advocating (and doing!) that I question whether you read what I wrote and whether you are acting according to some outside agenda. The severity of your reaction is hardly justified.

Lacking compassion and moral fibre, well.. maybe we'll laugh like this when you die - oh wait, you'll never have amounted to anything, so no one will know you are dead... shucks, well I'll laugh now just so that I don't accidentally miss your demise, you heartless bastard

Who's being needlessly cruel now? I never questioned anyone's compassion or moral fiber, neither did I say anything which should cause my own to come in to question. Facing uncomfortable truths head-on is the very substance of moral uprightness. I could be fairly accused of a lack of compassion by an impartial observer, but such an accusation, if fairly made, could be shown to be without basis by simple cross-examination. Since no one asked me to justify it I have not done so, nor do I care to justify myself to such an obviously biased person as yourself.

Oh, and as the cap fits, I suggest you don't bump you giant asshat on the way out.

I'm sure you're patting yourself on the back for this witticism, but it makes such little sense that I cannot even bring myself to be slightly amused.

I give you a rating of 4 out of 10 on my troll-o-meter. Good enough, but too obvious to be in any real danger of being mistaken for genuine. Better luck next time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Oh dear. Please accept 2/10 fror your little effort. That's all I have. Not worth making any more effort pointing out that your giant back pedalling was pretty funny.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Not worth the effort... and yet you did so anyway.

I know you won't point out any specific contradiction, real or imagined, in what I have written and this is because you can't. I recognize your technique in alluding to something which doesn't exist and dismissing it, thus making any counter point impossible. One golf clap to you, sir. I don't know who you think you're fooling.

Reply Parent Score: 2