retrospective trolling

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear see the OP it contains a third party reference to a site which details the practice, a site and reference that I did not author thoroughly refuting your bogus claim.

You're missing the point. No one seems to agree with you - or your "third party reference" - regarding the silly notion of "retrospective trolling" that you are using to generate reams of ineffectual 'banter' on various threads. I have told you why I think it's nonsense, so has Proper Knob, so has divegeester. The same goes for your "third party reference". You haven't been tackling anyone on what they have said to you. You just keep using the same strings of words and hyperbolic phrases over and over and over again.

Originally posted by FMF
You're missing the point. No one seems to agree with you - or your "third party reference" - regarding the silly notion of "retrospective trolling" that you are using to generate reams of ineffectual 'banter' on various threads. I have told you why I think it's nonsense, so has Proper Knob, so has divegeester. The same goes for your "third party reference". You ...[text shortened]... u just keep using the same strings of words and hyperbolic phrases over and over and over again.

all your propaganda is demonstrably false.

No one seems to agree with you - false,

Proper knob recognizes the practice he infact coined the phrase retro-trollin, i recognize it, the Smosh recognizes it and yctybe who posted on page one recognizes it. The only people not to recognize it are you and your droog sock puppet dweebjeester. I can cite numerous instances where you have cast elements up from the past with no other purpose that to embarrass and discredit others. Infact you have spent the last two months hounding grandpa Bobby doing just that.

The rest of your text is unworthy of serious comment and will be readily ignored as such.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

all your stupid propoganda is demonstrably false. No one seems to agree with you - false, Proper knob recognizes the practice he infact cionedthe phrase retro-trollin, i recognize it, the Smosh recognizes it and yctybe who posted on page one recognizes it. The only people not to recognize it are you and your droog sock puppet dweebjeester. I can cite numerous instances where you have cast elements up from the past with no other purpose that to embarrass and discredit others. Infact you have spent the last two months hounding grandpa Bobby doing just that. The rest of your text is unworthy of serious comment and will be readily ignored as such.

your stupid propoganda CHECK

demonstrably false CHECK

you and your droog sock puppet CHECK

embarrass and discredit others CHECK

unworthy of serious comment CHECK

it will be readily ignored CHECK

OK, so yoctobyte agrees with you. Fair enough. I hadn't noticed. I was talking about those posters you were trying to "discuss" it with.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Have you anything to say on the content, no? then also beat it, panic over, problem solved.

Would you describe yourself as opposed to posters trying to confront, embarrass and discredit each other?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]all your stupid propoganda is demonstrably false. No one seems to agree with you - false, Proper knob recognizes the practice he infact cionedthe phrase retro-trollin, i recognize it, the Smosh recognizes it and yctybe who posted on page one recognizes it. The only people not to recognize it are you and your droog sock puppet dweebjeester. I can cite numerous ...[text shortened]... nough. I hadn't noticed. I was talking about those posters you were trying to "discuss" it with.

more meaningless drivel, thanks for that

Originally posted by FMF
Would you describe yourself as opposed to posters trying to confront, embarrass and discredit each other?

what motivates people is their affair I am certainly against the practice of dragging elements up from the past so as to embarrass and discredit people, it simply what we call in chess a cheapo, a cheap tactic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what motivates people is their affair I am certainly against the practice of dragging elements up from the past so as to embarrass and discredit people, it simply what we call in chess a cheapo, a cheap tactic

Yes but my question was would you describe yourself as opposed to posters trying to confront, embarrass and discredit each other on a message board such as this?

Originally posted by FMF
Yes but my question was would you describe yourself as opposed to posters trying to confront, embarrass and discredit each other on a message board such as this?

it depends on the context, i cannot say without a clear example.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more meaningless drivel, thanks for that

Meaningless drivel? 80% of my post was words you had posted.

I said: "OK, so yoctobyte agrees with you. Fair enough. I hadn't noticed. I was talking about those posters you were trying to "discuss" it with."

How can this comment possibly be called "meaningless" if you consider what it was in reply to?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it depends on the context, i cannot say without a clear example.

In your view, does your notion of "retrospective trolling" also "depend on the context"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary I provided a link from a third party website detailing just what retro trolling is and why people engage in it - Your silly assertion therfore stands refuted and your empty propaganda mock-worthy.

You have ignored all the Christian principles that have been cited and instead dished us up a limp cabbage of an argument to justify r ...[text shortened]... d in by you and various other reprobates is immoral and anti biblical for reasons already cited.

So let's be clear then, you are positioning yourself to lead this crusade where you personally will never ever bring up anything from any posters posting history in any debated or argument, ever again. Is that correct?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes I know what I have written but no one has claimed that retro-trolling is intended to provide people with a reason to change their perspective.

Nope, you still don't get it. Let me try again.

You've claimed retro-trolling is immoral because it doesn't take into account that people views may change. Can you give an example, or two, where something you previously said in a discussion has been brought up but you had already changed your views on whatever was brought up?

What are you doing still up at nearly 4am?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all your propaganda is demonstrably false.

No one seems to agree with you - false,

Proper knob recognizes the practice he infact coined the phrase retro-trollin, i recognize it, the Smosh recognizes it and yctybe who posted on page one recognizes it. The only people not to recognize it are you and your droog sock puppet dweebjeester. I can cit ...[text shortened]... at.

The rest of your text is unworthy of serious comment and will be readily ignored as such.

I recognise the practice? Sure, it's called 'reminding people of what they said'. The reason why you find this so contentious is laid out by my good self on page 1 of this thread.

Did I coin the term 'retrospective trolling'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what motivates people is their affair I am certainly against the practice of dragging elements up from the past so as to embarrass and discredit people, it simply what we call in chess a cheapo, a cheap tactic.

If this 'retrospective trolling' is a 'cheapo', what about 'name calling, goading, ridiculing and taunting'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What are you doing still up at nearly 4am?

He's probably going through your posting history.