Go back

"Internet Trolls..."

General

1 edit

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you substantiate your claims you frothy windbag..
Tell me. What is it you think I am claiming?


Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Whiff whaff thats funny 😀
Unfortunately i can't take credit for it.

It's how Boris Johnson famously described 'ping pong' in a tv interview.

'... it was a common misconception table tennis had been invented in China, it was invented on the dining tables of England in the 19th century and was called whiff-whaff.'

Who are we to argue with Boris?


-Removed-
Okay, I'll put the cheese to one side for a moment and speak plainly.

For weeks (months?!) you made regular comments about how Robbie was ignoring you, and how this was one of the worst forms of forum rudeness. (Kelly has also been accused of doing the same). Finally, Robbie starts to respond to you again in the forums and you immediately (and relentlessly) hound him at every possible opportunity. (And yes, i know he can give as hard as he gets). Eventually of course he will start ignoring you again, and no doubt will once more stand guilty of rudeness.

Returning to the cheese, if you knew a man was going to pelt you with Gorgonzola every time you spoke to him, wouldn't you ignore him, and would you consider yourself rude for doing so?


Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Unfortunately i can't take credit for it.

It's how Boris Johnson famously described 'ping pong' in a tv interview.

'... it was a common misconception table tennis had been invented in China, it was invented on the dining tables of England in the 19th century and was called whiff-whaff.'

Who are we to argue with Boris?
Boris has blue blood running through him, is he still the Mayor, what happened to Ken Livingstone and Dick Whittington?

1 edit


-Removed-
So my character is now suspicious to you because i challenge you on something?

I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.


Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
So my character is now suspicious to you because i challenge you on something?

I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.
you tried ghost, you tried to reach out to him in good faith and reasonableness. I once
would have tried too but too late for that now.

1 edit


2 edits

-Removed-
Do you have empirical evidence of 'gay bashing?' Are confessing to having a sly swipe now and again, a wee nibble Mike Tyson style on a passing gay couple? have you cuffed a few passing gays around the ear and regretted it later? Fess up Jeester and I will hear your confession and seek absolution for them.

1 edit

1 edit

-Removed-
On the contrary my position is rather clear, i will condemn no one unless i have evidence. You have failed to provide a shred of evidence for any of your claims and instead insult our intelligence every single time with the same frothy wash. You are busted jeester, morally and spiritually bereft! they are calling you out in spirituality for being a fake, a phony and a charlatan. Karma has bitten your bum jeester and your wagon is a smoldering wreck on the forum floor, too bad, if you had been honest it might have been better for you.


Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary my position is rather clear, i will condemn no one unless i have evidence.
But you've suggested that you would still not condemn violence against homosexuals or a JW sexually abusing children even if the perpetrators revealed to you what they had done. Why would them admitting it to you not constitute "evidence"? Why would you still "seek to understand rather than condemn" even if you'd been told - by them - of the violence/abuse?


Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.
This is an interesting comment. You come across as enjoying robbie's brand of humour (whilst invariably trumping it with a much more wry brand of your own), which is undoubtedly your prerogative. But supporting "positions"? You seem almost completely uninterested in any of the "positions" taken by robbie or divegeester. You mention "90%"? On the contrary, you come across as pointedly neutral and unwilling to get involved in any discussion involving the two of them, which of course may well be the wise course of action. 😉


Originally posted by FMF
This is an interesting comment. You come across as enjoying robbie's brand of humour (whilst invariably trumping it with a much more wry brand of your own), which is undoubtedly your prerogative. But supporting "positions"? You seem almost completely uninterested in any of the "positions" taken by robbie or divegeester. You mention "90%"? On the contrary, you co ...[text shortened]... discussion involving the two of them, which of course may well be the wise course of action. 😉
On the other hand, you don't often take positions. You just rag on people who do.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.