A conversation with a probable troll

 Yesterday I had a surprise interaction on Free Republic that was a textbook match for some of the patterns that I'd identified in my blog post from March 10, 2022. 

I thought I'd share the analysis I posted on that discussion. (Reformatted here for clarity)

____________________________________

To: JimSp; Jane Long; AdmSmith

JimSp,

Thanks for playing and at Jane’s request I’m going to dissect what you’ve done here.

Let’s start with my post that you initially responded to:

>To: Navy Patriot
>Good. Now we need to sanction every last one of Putin’s blood relatives and every last one of his friends.
>
>Take their money, take their yachts, take their mansions, sell it all and hand it to the Ukrainians as reparations.
>
>9 posted on 4/6/2022, 10:12:49 AM by MercyFlush (I don’t  follow the science. I follow the money. )

So here I am applauding the sanctions and nowhere in this post am I discussing the legalities of the sanctions. But I am definitely supporting the sanctions. With me so far? Good.

Here’s your first contact to me:

>To: MercyFlush
>What is the legal basis for the actions your propose?
>
>89 posted on 04/06/2022 2:43:41 PM PDT by JimSp

Your first interaction with me consists of an unsolicited question that asks me to defend a proposal I did not make. Sanctions were not my proposal and the premise that I’m obligated to defend the legality of those sanctions is an invention on your part. You have created a ‘straw man’ and now you want me to defend something I never said. How cute.

So since this was not my proposal and since you would seem to question the legality of the sanctions I turned your question around on you:

>To: JimSp
>“What is the legal basis for the actions your propose?”
>
>What’s your reason for thinking the sanctions are not legal?
>
>90 posted on 04/06/2022 3:14:12 PM PDT by MercyFlush (I don’t follow the science. I follow the money. )

Seems pretty innocuous to me to ask why you would question the legality of the sanctions.

And here’s your response to my question:

>To: MercyFlush
>I was hoping to have a useful conversation with a sane, >rational person. I see you are unqualified for that. Good >bye.
>
>101 posted on 04/06/2022 8:34:02 PM PDT by JimSp

So let’s look at the progression here.

1. I celebrated the sanctions.

2. You asked me an unsolicited and loaded question with the assumption that the sanctions were my proposal and the expectation was that I would engage you in a discourse over the legalities of the sanctions. (It should be noted that in post #86 you asked Navy Patriot a modified version of the question that did not ask him to defend anything.)

3. Instead of defending a proposal I did not make I asked you to explain why you would think the sanctions were not legal.

4. Your unprovoked and wholly disproportionate response to my simple question was to impugn my mental faculties and imply that I am irrational.

My analysis is that your first post was an attempt to draw me into a defense of a premise I did not make, thereby getting me off topic. When I refused to play by your rules you made a second attempt to draw me into a discussion by accusing me of having mental problems.

All of which I’ve identified as proven Russian troll tactics.

I’m not saying conclusively that you’re a Russian troll but I will say that your posting patterns make you an extremely viable suspect.

Welcome to my list.

https://frtrollwatch.blogspot.com/2022/03/where-we-are-so-far.html