10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFIts not robbies definition, It was in the article cited by the OP which you ignored and
What's your insight into people criticizing spelling, is it "trolling"? Is your definition of "trolling" a kind of fuzzy catch-all term like robbie's?
probably still have not read.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is "robbie's definition":
Its not robbies definition, It was in the article cited by the OP which you ignored and
probably still have not read.
[There] is a whole spectrum of behavior that is construed as trolling, not all of it sinister, ranging from simply poking fun to outright lies and defamation of character, comments about peoples wives, dead parents etc There are some truly horrible people but the forum usually rises up and expunges them somehow before they can do much damage.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFIts not a definition, just an observation.
This is "robbie's definition":
[b][There] is a whole spectrum of behavior that is construed as trolling, not all of it sinister, ranging from simply poking fun to outright lies and defamation of character, comments about peoples wives, dead parents etc There are some truly horrible people but the forum usually rises up and expunges them somehow before they can do much damage. [/b]
10 Sep 15
Originally copy pasted by Grampy BobbyI can't recall ever saying anything to anyone here that I wouldn't have been prepared to say in person. What about you? Does the "online disinhibition effect" empower you in any way?
Some people are under the impression that you can say anything online and get away with it.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhat's your insight into people criticizing spelling, is it "trolling"? Is your observation on "trolling" a kind of fuzzy catch-all thing like robbie's?
"God, Jeromy won't stop posting about Larry's bad spelling in that conversation."
"Yeah, I know, what a Internet Troll."
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFyes I have said many things I have regretted, blurted things out in the heat of debate that
I can't recall ever saying anything to anyone here that I wouldn't have been prepared to say in person. What about you? Does the "online disinhibition effect" empower you in any way?
immediately panged the conscience, but remain upbeat that its not all lost, not yet anyway.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell they happened in a public place if they happened on these forums, so I suggest you stand up and take responsibility for them rather than hide behind a preposterous concept that you apparently think allows you to avoid taking personal responsibility ~ and, what's more, allows you to frame it as "trolling" and in so doing attempt to make it about someone else's flaw rather than your own lack of integrity. Total twaddle. Good grief, it's a public debate and discussion arena. .
yes I have said many things I have regretted, blurted things out in the heat of debate that
immediately panged the conscience, but remain upbeat that its not all lost, not yet anyway.
Originally posted by FMFI have not denied responsibility for them nor have I used any concept that denies
Well they happened in a public place if they happened on these forums, so I suggest you stand up and take responsibility for them rather than hide behind a preposterous concept that you apparently think allows you to avoid taking personal responsibility ~ and, what's more, allows you to frame it as "trolling" and in so doing attempt to make it about someone else ...[text shortened]... r own lack of integrity. Total twaddle. Good grief, it's a public debate and discussion arena. .
responsibility for them. Nothing I have said justifies your retrospectively casting things up in
order to embarrass people so you can figuratively scourge them in public. It reeks to me of
a cruel and sadistic streak. I also fail to see what it accomplishes other than making
people feel bad about themselves. Its focus is not on objective reasoning but on
personality and can in no circumstances be described as productive debate.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have not denied responsibility for them nor have I used any concept that denies
responsibility for them. Nothing I have said justifies your retrospectively casting things up in
order to embarrass people so you can figuratively scourge them in public. It reeks to me of
a cruel and sadistic streak. I also fail to see what it accomplishes other than making
people feel bad about themselves. Its focus is not on objective reasoning but on
personality and can in no circumstances be described as productive debate.
Like I said, I think any definition of "trolling" that would include people mentioning or questioning what others have said in public in debates and discussions is daft.
Furthermore, as an attempt to inhibit debate and discussion by way of a petty ad hominem, doesn't work. If you refuse to stand by or correct what you once said, it just means what it means.
You can only hope that the deflection works in the eyes of the people who happen to subscribe to the "retrospective trolling" silliness
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by divegeesterAwe diddums are you still sore cause that bad ol puddy cat robbie called you a 'son of
And yet you have no compunction in attacking my personality, even to the point of calling me a "son of Satan".
Satan', there there it will be ok, il get to him to issue a public apology, how about that, will it
make you feel better?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFof course you do, otherwise your whole modus operandi is busted.
[b]I have not denied responsibility for them nor have I used any concept that denies
responsibility for them. Nothing I have said justifies your retrospectively casting things up in
order to embarrass people so you can figuratively scourge them in public. It reeks to me of
a cruel and sadistic streak. I also fail to see what it accomplishes other than maki ...[text shortened]... orks in the eyes of the people who happen to subscribe to the "retrospective trolling" silliness