TROLLS in the BROWN CAFE!

hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative. cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive). but your logic fails you here the way it failed ups years ago. you've tried for years to ignore the competition and we didn't go away. to suggest that i would go away because i'm not popular or the other children just don't want to play with me, well that's just silly. i amuse myself but not anymore than the little "ups good fedex bad" mantra that many like to put forth around here. believe me, i've been ignored by better.:happy-very:

I am currently posting on a forum titled UPS Disscussions and I see nothing in the title that relates to FedEX so I agree that we should not feed the trolls.:stalker:
 
M

Mike23

Guest
Have you ever noticed in the Fedex Forum they refer to their centers or hubs as stations!

It all makes sense now! See guys? This is why Fedex falls under a separate legislation! They call hubs 'stations'! Well, they ARE completely different now!
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member

Here's a troll in living color. FedEx4Life posts on other sites with the same username (check FedExcess.com), the same misinformation, and the same pro-FedEx propaganda. Why is it that you write like a 3rd grader on this site, yet somehow manage to be more articulate on the others? Is that a troll tactic to worm your way into our hearts?

I don't know if you're management, a hired shill, or some Klingon (as in dingleberry) that just likes to stir the feces, but please just get lost. You're a fake, a phony, and a jerk for wasting our time here. Tell your handlers that you've been found out.
 

satellitedriver

Moderator
hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative. cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive). but your logic fails you here the way it failed ups years ago. you've tried for years to ignore the competition and we didn't go away. to suggest that i would go away because i'm not popular or the other children just don't want to play with me, well that's just silly. i amuse myself but not anymore than the little "ups good fedex bad" mantra that many like to put forth around here. believe me, i've been ignored by better.:happy-very:
You are not a Troll, you are an antagonist.
As far as the double negative thing, I will just have to count the negatives in your run along sentence.

hmmmm. no(1), i don't(2) think i'm all that negative(3). cocky and reasonably informed, but not(4) negative(5) (that's a double negative and thus a positive)( Only equal numbers of negatives make a positive, so you prove yourself negative)
. but your logic(you are using implied logic,that never works) fails you here the way it failed ups years ago(show proof of this statement). you've tried for years to ignore the competition and we didn't go away.(ignore? UPS has never ignored competition and has a very definite focus on FedEx.) to suggest that i would go away because i'm not popular or the other children just don't want to play with me, well that's just silly. i amuse myself( now, that is troll talk) but not anymore than the little "ups good fedex bad" mantra that many like to put forth around here. believe me, i've been ignored by better.(:happy-very:
Not ignored, just tolerated, by your betters.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
You are not a Troll, you are an antagonist.
As far as the double negative thing, I will just have to count the negatives in your run along sentence.


Not ignored, just tolerated, by your betters.
I think my lack of capitalization has thrown you off. Lazy on my part. If you mean antagonist in the context that my views do not conform with the protagonist majority, then yes, I am an antagonist. If you mean that I just like to antagonize, then no, not really. That my views may be antagonistic, however, seldom keeps me from posting.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
Here's a troll in living color. FedEx4Life posts on other sites with the same username (check FedExcess.com), the same misinformation, and the same pro-FedEx propaganda. Why is it that you write like a 3rd grader on this site, yet somehow manage to be more articulate on the others? Is that a troll tactic to worm your way into our hearts?

I don't know if you're management, a hired shill, or some Klingon (as in dingleberry) that just likes to stir the feces, but please just get lost. You're a fake, a phony, and a jerk for wasting our time here. Tell your handlers that you've been found out.

We all know this and appreciate the effort. I am not being sarcastic. Just do not respond to them and they will fade away once this whole FedEx thing dies down in coming months. by giving them attention you are falling into the trap they are setting, the attention you give this person in return is exactly what they crave
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
satellite-
You've actually got me intrigued about my own sentence structure. I believe the first "no" is a simple repudiation of a previous post. Therefore the "don't" and "negative" would come together in the first sentence to form a positive. It is at that point that I use a period to end the thought and preclude the run-on sentence that would have been further indicated had I capitalized the first word of the following sentence, in this case "Cocky". Therefore, the double negative at the end of the sentence "not negative" is indeed as I sloppily claimed it to be. The fallacious reasoning that one can merely count the negatives in a statement to deduce the existence or lack of a double negative negates the possibility of implied subjects as well as simply bad grammar and or punctuation.
You state that implied logic never works. Why would that be the case? And just what is it that it fails to do.
You say "show proof of this statement", but if the implied logic that UPS never took RPS seriously is incorrect, then I stand corrected. If on the other hand UPS looked down on RPS and merely had the attitude that they were to be "tolerated by [their] betters" then I would say that the simple continued existence of FedEx Ground should imply at least a miscalculation of logic.
My appologies for the troll talk. I will try to be better in the future so that i may continue to be "tolerated by my betters".
 
bbsam, I'm having a little trouble following you on this slant. Here's why. You said:hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative.
cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive)

While being negative is, well a negative trait, you state you are not in fact negative. So, that in of itself a positive. So this doesn't fit into the equation of 2n=1p. It actually becomes one and one"Cocky" being a negative and "reasonably informed" being a positive, your claim to this being an overall positive just doesn't float the boat.

I do have to admit that I am not a scholar on any level, thus I don't understand your calculations.
 

Big Babooba

Well-Known Member
bbsam, I'm having a little trouble following you on this slant. Here's why. You said:hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative.
cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive)

While being negative is, well a negative trait, you state you are not in fact negative. So, that in of itself a positive. So this doesn't fit into the equation of 2n=1p. It actually becomes one and one"Cocky" being a negative and "reasonably informed" being a positive, your claim to this being an overall positive just doesn't float the boat.

I do have to admit that I am not a scholar on any level, thus I don't understand your calculations.
I'm lost.:knockedout: Are you saying that you're positive that he's negative?:wink2:
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
bbsam, I'm having a little trouble following you on this slant. Here's why. You said:hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative.
cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive)

While being negative is, well a negative trait, you state you are not in fact negative. So, that in of itself a positive. So this doesn't fit into the equation of 2n=1p. It actually becomes one and one"Cocky" being a negative and "reasonably informed" being a positive, your claim to this being an overall positive just doesn't float the boat.

I do have to admit that I am not a scholar on any level, thus I don't understand your calculations.
lol. No, I am not a scholar either. But I do enjoy word play from time to time. It may simply be that in this instance be that the equation is not 2n=1p but rather that 1n+1p>0. It would all depend of upon the value one assigns to n and p. In fact, depending upon the subset in which on is dealing, "cocky" could be construed as a positive and thus increasing the amount by which 1n+1p>0. Of course the inverse is also true that if the negative value of "cocky" so completely overshadows a miniscule value of "reasonably informed" as to make the relationship 1n+1p<0 and by definition negative. On the chance that n and p are assigned the same value then we are faced with the obvious conclusion of a zero sum. So in conclusion, the literary and logical suggestion that two negatives make a positive can only be true in a completely objective setting. Once adjectives like "cocky" and "reasonably informed" enter the fray, we have entered into the realm of the subjective, and thus a more fluid relationship in the assignment of negative or positive.:smart: Or I could just be full of crap.:wink2:
 
lol. No, I am not a scholar either. But I do enjoy word play from time to time. It may simply be that in this instance be that the equation is not 2n=1p but rather that 1n+1p>0. It would all depend of upon the value one assigns to n and p. In fact, depending upon the subset in which on is dealing, "cocky" could be construed as a positive and thus increasing the amount by which 1n+1p>0. Of course the inverse is also true that if the negative value of "cocky" so completely overshadows a miniscule value of "reasonably informed" as to make the relationship 1n+1p<0 and by definition negative. On the chance that n and p are assigned the same value then we are faced with the obvious conclusion of a zero sum. So in conclusion, the literary and logical suggestion that two negatives make a positive can only be true in a completely objective setting. Once adjectives like "cocky" and "reasonably informed" enter the fray, we have entered into the realm of the subjective, and thus a more fluid relationship in the assignment of negative or positive.:smart: Or I could just be full of crap.:wink2:
That's one thing I am positive about, .........or not.
 

Re-Raise

Well-Known Member
lol. No, I am not a scholar either. But I do enjoy word play from time to time. It may simply be that in this instance be that the equation is not 2n=1p but rather that 1n+1p>0. It would all depend of upon the value one assigns to n and p. In fact, depending upon the subset in which on is dealing, "cocky" could be construed as a positive and thus increasing the amount by which 1n+1p>0. Of course the inverse is also true that if the negative value of "cocky" so completely overshadows a miniscule value of "reasonably informed" as to make the relationship 1n+1p<0 and by definition negative. On the chance that n and p are assigned the same value then we are faced with the obvious conclusion of a zero sum. So in conclusion, the literary and logical suggestion that two negatives make a positive can only be true in a completely objective setting. Once adjectives like "cocky" and "reasonably informed" enter the fray, we have entered into the realm of the subjective, and thus a more fluid relationship in the assignment of negative or positive.:smart: Or I could just be full of crap.:wink2:

Sadly enough this makes sense to me..

So if both trains left the station at the same time but travelling at different speeds.. oh never mind.
 

satellitedriver

Moderator
I think my lack of capitalization has thrown you off.Nope Lazy on my part.Yep If you mean antagonist in the context that my views do not conform with the protagonist majority,Nope, that is not what I meant. then yes, I am an antagonist.Agreed If you mean that I just like to antagonize, then no, not really.(Double negative, just a joke.:happy2:) That my views may be antagonistic, however, seldom keeps me from posting.Keep posting. Those that wish to ignore have that right and the rest will just tolerate them.
 
Top