This is clearly your most objective posts to date, but the fact of the matter is you've made about 37 posts, and so far only about 7 of them haven't mentioned how much you disliked the 2004 Punisher film, and each and every time you say it, people attack you back. So that clearly fits your definitions.
First off, you're taking my quotes completely out of context. The OPs post was:
OK so I just found out this is going to be a reboot right? This is ****ing ridiculous, the movie came out in '04 so there's no ****ing reason to reboot the series.
It's not like with the hulk where the original sucks so hard you just need to start over. There's no damn excuse for this.
Abort this film before we're forced to give birth to it in a bathroom stall.
Basically, he presented the 3 main ideas of 1) rebooting the franchise is ridiculous, 2) the reboot isn't necessary, and 3) '04 wasn't poor enough to warrant a reboot.
My response was this:
This reboot is necessary. '04 sucked HARD. It's also a sequel combo, so it's not there not retelling the orgin with a faithful adaptation of YEAR ONE or anything. Though I wouldn't mind that either.
As you can see, I pretty much just offered the counter point of 1) The reboot is necessary, 2) '04 actually was poor enough to warrant a reboot, and 3) an explaination of the reboot so there wouldn't be any confusion about this being another "orgin story."
There is nothing I said that was totally unwarranted in relation to or even "below" the tone of the OP's post. My other post you took out of context was in response to another user who suggested that we "fanboys" had metaphorically turned our backs on Jonathan Hensleigh and Thomas Jane.
I simpy pointed out the distinction between myself and the crowd he was refering to, as to not get lumped into a category in which I didn't belong. None of this was "trolling."
Second, my criticisms of '04 were always attached to other ideas being expressed in the same post. Had my low opinion of '04 been the only single idea being expressed in each post and uncalled for in relation to the ideas which had been expressed before mine, THEN I would have been "trolling."
If anyone else here thinks that a user's post count and join date are indicative of how long they've been expressing their opinions on the Punisher or that I've ever implied being a "veteran" of SHH in any of my posts, like
Balthus Dire, then in my opinion, you are a ******. He mocked me. I mocked him back. You don't have to like it, but it sure as sh it doesn't make me a "troll."
I have nothing against your opinion, but the WAY you express your opinion, calling members of SHH ******s. Constantly calling 2004 Punisher names. Those things are JUST TO PROVOKE responses and to get people to pay attention to you.
You can very easily construct your opinion in a way that doesn't involve the shock and awe you think is necessary to get people to listen to you... that is what trolling is... and that is what you are doing.
It occurs to me as well that because I'd proclaim "'04 SUCKS" just as quickly and blunt as another user might proclaim "04 is AWESOME," you are under the impression than I am seeking attention or intentionally provoking "attacks." I don't shove my opinions down anyone's throat or demean anyone else's simply for the fact that they aren't my own, but I'm not going to water down or *****fy my statements so they're easier for you to swallow either. Other poster rarely do (if ever), why should I be expected too?
I posted my thoughts. Some may have agreed and some may have disagreed. I don't think it ever resulted in a barrage of "attacks" as you insinuated.
If you have any history dealing with real "trolls," then you know that an actual "troll" (not just a poster you disagree with or disapprove of how the poster presents his/her opinions) would never go to half this extent to prove that they are legit.
I think you misuse the slur far too liberally.
t:
