Back rubber and an employee of “Dr D Naturopath“, Andi Mell is a bit of a failure as a troll. As can be seen here and here, all Andi has to offer is criticism of sentence structure (for a grammar pedant, Andi has an interesting way of constructing sentences himself), lame insults (“pseudo intellectual” and “sad little man” being favourites of Andi), and accusing others of offences which he is guilty of committing himself (regardless of whether they have committed them or not).
He asks you to provide evidence when he offers none, calls you abusive and angry when he is the only one using name-calling, asks you the same questions over and over (even when you’ve already answered them), and when you ask him a direct question he always fails to even acknowledge that you have done so – let alone answer the question.
Obviously he’s a troll. Just not a very good one. Here are Andi’s marks out of ten…
Written English: 4. Barely comprehensible at times, Andi struggles to communicate with others. Despite this, he thinks of himself as something of a linguist and pedant. This lack of self-awareness probably helps to protect Andi from uncomfortable truths.
Insults: 2. The lamest of insults are offered – “pseudo intellectual” and “sad little man”. Andi seems to believe that repetition will make up for the weakness of his insults.
Ability to raise hackles: 3. The only thing Andi has in his favour here is persistence. Eventually, someone, somewhere is bound to be annoyed by him. It might take 50 or 60 comments aimed at a single individual, but at some point the continual lame name-calling and attempts at grammar pedantry will irritate someone.
Must try harder.
I’m not sure this guy even merits being mentioned in the same blog as troll extraordinaire, the legendary David Mabus. Nevertheless, an excellent summing-up of his abilities and modus operandi.
Annoyance level = buzzing fly
@ anotherchic’s tinklepotty
Well hello teapot, so nice of you to check in, guess I have a fan. You are absolutely correct and thanks for coming to my defense, there is definitely no comparison between me and “Dennis Markuze aka David Mabus”. Thinking about it, you have quite a bit in common though – you both live in a French speaking part of the world, you both indulge in nonsensical rants, you both use colorful and exaggerated metaphors and you both make idle threats. What else?
I was worried about you, after we finally agreed on something, you didn’t reply back. Did it have something to do with your fall, when you were “rolling in the aisles”? Was it at the pharmacy, while purchasing some meds for your painful and crippling TOS? Do you have balance issues as well, is it related to the disabling TOS?
On a serious note, just as this post you make a lot of assumptions and the rest is simply dirty politics ….. textbook “argumentum ad hominem” – if you can’t enter a meaningful discussion by presenting a reasonable opposing argument, negate the truth by pointing out negative characteristics or beliefs of the person supporting it.
I have already posted this quote to your peers, teapot: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle
What’s best is the irony of this post. The person posting this hateful, defamatory libel remains anonymous, not even the courage to stand behind their opinion. Also no different then “David Mabus”.
Readers will note that Andi’s comment begins with a childish reference to the online handle of the previous commenter, continues with insults and mocking (“you both indulge in nonsensical rants, you both use colorful and exaggerated metaphors and you both make idle threats”; “Do you have balance issues as well, is it related to the disabling TOS?”), pauses to accuse others of “argumentum ad hominem”, and finishes by characterising the blog post as “hateful, defamatory libel” and criticising the author for remaining anonymous.
Plenty of ad hom from Andi there, but no rebuttal of the claims made in the above blog post. What’s best is the irony of this comment from Andi. He seems to have no idea that he’s doing what he accuses others of doing. Good luck arguing that this isn’t accurate, Andi: “accusing others of offences which he is guilty of committing himself (regardless of whether they have committed them or not)”.
As you’re accusing me of “hateful, defamatory libel”, perhaps you or your lawyer would like to email wellknowntrolls@googlemail.com to set out the words complained of? If you have a legitimate complaint, then the post will be amended accordingly.
@ keyboardwarriorcowardwellknowntrolls
I would rather be hated for who I am, than be loved for who I’m not. I don’t need to be phony to be popular, I have something that you certainly don’t: courage, integrity and dignity. What you have, I call crab in a bucket syndrome, or primitive thug behaviour, which is at the antisocial end of herd mentality. You hate because I wasn’t who you wanted me to be and because you know you can’t be like me. In other words you hate because you can’t compete and you hate but don’t dare to confront, as you remain anonymous. You therefore don’t have an opinion and you are a coward. I understand why you remain anonymous however, as a coward you are insecure. All you understand is popular propaganda. You can’t challenge it, because you lack knowledge and/or effort. You accept it because it’s popular opinion and you want to believe because it provides comfort and security. Eventually when truths are revealed, and popular opinions are forced to change, it is easy to flip flop and hide your shame. A simple name change is all that is needed to avoid ridicule.
What’s most funny is that many of you make self-deprecating comments, on your about pages, which really show how insecure and miserable you are. You use silly identities and avatars, but then get angry, when someone agrees. James and teapot are excellent examples of that.
Speaking of childish, insults and mocking, that’s the entirety of your post. If I said it once, I said it a thousand times: “If you dish it out you should be able to take it”.
What’s with the subjective summary of my comment? Are your followers so ignorant that you have to explain it to them? Or are you afraid that they may think for themselves and come to a different conclusion? I don’t need to defend anything, there is nothing of substance to respond too. Its mind over matter – I don’t mind, because you don’t matter. Your kind assumes too much and knows so little. Beyond a coward I don’t know who you are, you could well be James or teapot. But the (possibly) three of you have something in common with the “three wise monkeys”, except you ain’t wise and the “evil” would have to be replaced by “knowledge” or integrity” or “courage” or “dignity” etc. And that would make a great avatar for this blog, James is already one third of the way there: http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/threemonkeys.gif
I wrote:
Andi wrote:
@Andi – should I assume (as you have failed to tell me what, specifically, is wrong with this article) that you will not be suing for defamation? Because you’re angry about reading the truth about yourself and you feel you have to lash out somehow, you chose to invoke defamation law. Silly boy.
@ keyboardwarriorcowardwellknowntrolls
Why would you need to assume? I responded to your reply and answered all questions, including your current question. The only thing silly, is that you even ask. Are you a child, or is that simply your mental capacity?
Why the constant need to quote and summarize? That was the best you could muster, why don’t you try to write something of substance? I don’t need luck to make a coherent argument, I’m intelligent. Based on all your comments so far, besides being a coward, you are obviously retarded.
Ah, mental health slurs. The mark of the douchebag. As I wrote above, you’re angry about reading the truth about yourself and you feel you have to lash out somehow. Calling me a retard just makes you look like a nasty, angry man. If you’re attempting to defend your reputation, then comments like that really aren’t going to help.
No you didn’t. And if you genuinely believe that you did, then I’m amazed that you think so.