Originally posted by robbie carrobie Can you point out where it makes any references to the content as posted by the OP?
The thread is about "trolls" and why one might be accused of being one. I have offered my insights. I was asking for Grampy Bobby's own insights into the topic/
Originally posted by FMF The thread is about "trolls" and why one might be accused of being one. I have offered my insights. I was asking for Grampy Bobby's own insights into the topic/
Then why not simply make reference to the content of his post rather than him personally?
Originally posted by FMF The thread is about "trolls" and why one might be accused of being one. I have offered my insights. I was asking for Grampy Bobby's own insights into the topic/
Are we to understand that you have never engaged in trolling FMF?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Then why not simply make reference to the content of his post rather than him personally?
His post is about "trolls" as was my question. This whole thread is about "trolls". I have been on-topic throughout. I've offered my insights into the accusations of "trolling". We await Grampy Bobby's insights.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie No GB's original post provided a definition,
An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed
to upset or disrupt the conversation.
I stand by my on-topic contributions to this thread. I think I have made pertinent points and made them cogently. No "trolling" has been involved, on my part at least.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Perhaps your comments casting up GBs alleged self confessed trolling in the spirituality forum were intended to refresh and edify him?
I am sure he remembers doing it. And I have no reason to think he regrets it at all.
Originally posted by FMF I am sure he remembers doing it. And I have no reason to think he regrets it at all.
So retrospectively casting up details which could potentially make one appear hypocritical is
your idea of making someone feel good about themselves. Interesting perspective that,
you don't think it could be upsetting? potentially embarrassing?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie So retrospectively casting up details which could potentially make one appear hypocritical is
your idea of making someone feel good about themselves. Interesting perspective that,
you don't think it could be upsetting?
Whether Grampy Bobby thinks of himself as hypocritical or not is something he could perhaps address in there among his insights when they appear. I don't think any facts I present will have much effect on what he thinks about it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie So retrospectively casting up details which could potentially make one appear hypocritical is
your idea of making someone feel good about themselves. Interesting perspective that,
you don't think it could be upsetting? potentially embarrassing?
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.
Originally posted by FMF Whether Grampy Bobby thinks of himself as hypocritical or not is something he could perhaps address in there among his insights when they appear. I don't think any facts I present will have much effect on what he thinks about it.
Yes but that's not what you were asked, You were asked if you think they might be
potentially embarrassing, not what GB thinks.
"Internet Trolls..."
10 Sep '15 12:59
Back to Top