I think I've had enough now.

[bizzard]

Cooooo-cooo-coo-coo-couldn't be=or mightn't be Pidgin English.

[carlt]

Dont worry about it Jack its the old ''click'' ignore them.

Here we go again. Man talks utter nonsense then dismisses those who pick him up on it by crying "Click!"(sic) whilst at the same time trying to attract someone over to his side...with the intention of forming a clique, perhaps?

Edited November 29, 2011 by carlt

[mayalld]

To my knowledge its known as American and was actually a rather lengthy debate at Uni many years ago.

But thanks anyway.

 

One can only assume that you were employed to clean the toilets, rather than a student.

 

Your knowledge is plain wrong, and the use of apostrophe contractions is not known as American by the world at large.

[Guest]

I haven't spotted a troll or used the word in accusation. I have read it being used by others. Most recently it was for a guy that had grinding noises coming from his engine. I have read a lot of threads rather than post and it looks like this thread is starting to prove the reason why this is the better route to take.

 

On a point of order though CJS - I recall that thread and the accusations being levelled (which you may recall I intervened in as I too thought it was unfair) - however the member who levelled the 'troll' allegation has only been a member since earlier this year (January) and is not, by virtue of his posting rate a 'long standing member'.

[Spacebar]

It was you who started this by correcting a simple typo (whilst anally tossing off your ego?).

 

As your post contained a grammatical error you laid yourself wide open to retaliation.

 

If you are going to accuse someone of tossing his ego off anally then you really shouldn't do the same thing, in preceding posts.

 

You may find money making opportunities, elsewhere on the internet, however.

My post contained exactly what I wanted it too.

As for money making opportunities I dont need to find them your doing it all for me in way you will never know.

[casper ghost]

I wouldn't wish to be a member of any clique that would have me as a member.

That view would almost certainly give you high status in the no clique, clique.

Casp'

[carlt]

My post contained exactly what I wanted it too.

That's fine then.

 

It's nice to see someone who recognises his own limitations.

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

You implied it. I have misread nothing.

 

Tony

 

This is what I posted -

 

**My biggest concern is vulnerability. People join forums and are effectively a faceless electronic entity, which for some is where their bravado comes from but for others it may be the opposite as they are just looking for a common bond. Negative comments and attacks could deeply affect this type of poster and who's to say what could entail. Although I'm not aware it was connected to the forum, I read that a member took her own life a few months back.

 

How many faceless entities would rest well at night knowing they played a part in pushing someone over the edge though? I know I wouldn't.**

 

I'm not aware it was connected to the forum - i.e To my knowledge, it was not connected to the forum. It does however leave it open ended for someone to state otherwise, which they have not - therefore unconnected, to my knowledge. It doesn't change the fact that a vulnerable person was a member and could have been treated differently, thus contributing to their personal circumstances.

 

If one person is clearly spouting nonsense then many others will point out his error.

 

When everyone says "You're wrong, and here's the proof." then it's usually a fair indicator that you are wrong and it is best to either shut up or acknowledge your mistake, not compound the nonsense.

 

Pointing out an error is one thing but swearing and insults is another.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Captain Jack Sparrow

[Guest]

My post contained exactly what I wanted it too.

As for money making opportunities I dont need to find them your doing it all for me in way you will never know.

 

Nice signature BTW -

 

WARNING Apparently IM a thug as I want a guard dog and think its ok to slap people who hit dogs.

The choice is yours!

[Offcumden]

I'm curious about how a new member would have the experience to spot a potential troll, but let it pass, let it pass

 

Richard

I don't think its just new members who have difficulty in spotting them but having spotted one why bother replying to them.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not refering to either you or Cjs

[Spacebar]

I wouldn't dream of getting into a debate about such trifling matters other than with somebody who opened that particular can of worms himself.

 

Now remind us, who was it that felt it necessary to correct my spelling?

I would'nt feel the need to correct your spelling if you were not spouting on about ''facts'' and ''opinons'' and your overwhelming desire to put yorself forward as the person who will pull people and make those judgements.

But in person folks watch him cower gloriously.

[RLWP]

I don't think its just new members who have difficulty in spotting them but having spotted one why bother replying to them.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not refering to either you or Cjs

 

It's a good question. There is a certain amount of fun in playing the ridicule game, but it doesn't really add to the reputation of the forum

 

Anyway, I have to leave this now to go and rescue a damson in distress

 

Richard

[Offcumden]

It's a good question. There is a certain amount of fun in playing the ridicule game, but it doesn't really add to the reputation of the forum

 

Anyway, I have to leave this now to go and rescue a damson in distress

 

Richard

I hope She's in Gin and not just Sloe

[Spesh]

... it was merely an observation that the word "troll" is bandied around by "some" long standing members (not all of them) all too easily to describe a newer member that disagrees with them or their opinion.

This just isn't the case though. People get labelled trolls only when their "opinion" has been so clearly shown to be non-sensical that the only possible explanation for their continuing to state it (and generally in a far more aggressive way than those responding) can be because they want to cause a fight just for the sake of it. We're talking people swearing blind that black is white and insulting anybody who presents clear evidence that it's actually not. Trolling is no more than a word which describes precisely that behaviour.

 

Nobody who goes to the effort of engaging in reasoned debate is called a troll, regardless of whether the position they are stating is at odds with that being put forward by a long standing member. It's surely not asking too much for someone to be expected to be able to justify a position before they start shouting it from the rooftops, and calling them out if they fail to do so?

[Sir Nibble]

May I suggest that spacebar is given the freedom to post corrections to others spelling, remain immune to corrections to his own, be allowed to point out the silliness of anyone caring and immunity from anyone pointing out the contradiction. Special needs deserve special treatment and to simply engage as if we were all adult people results in accusations of trolling on one hand and an aggressive clique on the other. So let him say what he wants AND IGNORE HIM.

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

This just isn't the case though. People get labelled trolls only when their "opinion" has been so clearly shown to be non-sensical that the only possible explanation for their continuing to state it (and generally in a far more aggressive way than those responding) can be because they want to cause a fight just for the sake of it. We're talking people swearing blind that black is white and insulting anybody who presents clear evidence that it's actually not. Trolling is no more than a word which describes precisely that behaviour.

 

Nobody who goes to the effort of engaging in reasoned debate is called a troll, regardless of whether the position they are stating is at odds with that being put forward by a long standing member. It's surely not asking too much for someone to be expected to be able to justify a position before they start shouting it from the rooftops, and calling them out if they fail to do so?

 

Sorry, but that is not correct in every case - "Troll" was used against a newer member that had unidentified engine noise issues...do you wish me to find it?

[Guest]

Sorry, but that is not correct in every case - "Troll" was used against a newer member that had unidentified engine noise issues...do you wish me to find it?

 

See my earlier post CJS - it wasn't a 'long standing member'

 

Linky no worky -

 

Wot I said woz -

 

On a point of order though CJS - I recall that thread and the accusations being levelled (which you may recall I intervened in as I too thought it was unfair) - however the member who levelled the 'troll' allegation has only been a member since earlier this year (January) and is not, by virtue of his posting rate a 'long standing member'.

Edited November 29, 2011 by MJG

[carlt]

AND IGNORE HIM.

Is that just cliquettes or the whole forum membership?

[Spacebar]

That's fine then.

 

It's nice to see someone who recognises his own limitations.

Well when you have finished looking in the mirror at yourself feel free to reply/troll your clik click clique needs you.

[David Schweizer]

This is what I posted -

 

**My biggest concern is vulnerability. People join forums and are effectively a faceless electronic entity, which for some is where their bravado comes from but for others it may be the opposite as they are just looking for a common bond. Negative comments and attacks could deeply affect this type of poster and who's to say what could entail. Although I'm not aware it was connected to the forum, I read that a member took her own life a few months back.

 

How many faceless entities would rest well at night knowing they played a part in pushing someone over the edge though? I know I wouldn't.**

 

I'm not aware it was connected to the forum - i.e To my knowledge, it was not connected to the forum. It does however leave it open ended for someone to state otherwise, which they have not - therefore unconnected, to my knowledge. It doesn't change the fact that a vulnerable person was a member and could have been treated differently, thus contributing to their personal circumstances.

 

 

 

Pointing out an error is one thing but swearing and insults is another.

It may be me, but could someone please explain why I find KJS's comments irritating, not mention pompous and patronizing.

Edited November 29, 2011 by David Schweizer

[carlt]

Pointing out an error is one thing but swearing and insults is another.

and it is usually the one spouting the nonsense that first resorts to insults.

[Barry]

Sometimes it is like being in a school playground

 

'What about you ner ner nener ner'

 

Strewth

[carlt]

Well when you have finished looking in the mirror at yourself feel free to reply/troll your clik click clique needs you.

are you sure you don't play the armadillo?

[Nine of Hearts]

Anyway, I have to leave this now to go and rescue a damson in distress

 

Is she in a jam?

 

I'm not aware it was connected to the forum - i.e To my knowledge, it was not connected to the forum. It does however leave it open ended for someone to state otherwise, which they have not - therefore unconnected, to my knowledge. It doesn't change the fact that a vulnerable person was a member and could have been treated differently, thus contributing to their personal circumstances.

 

Whilst I think I understand what you're getting at, I'm not sure I know what you think is the solution. You would seem to imply that if a poster says something that I disagree with, and others are already disagreeing with them, I can't add my opinion because this would be ganging up on them and they could be vulnerable? On the odd occasion where I've succumbed to a "flame war", I've just gone away for a bit and calmed down and everything was nice as pie again afterwards. I really don't think the problem exists to anywhere near the level that is being made out.

 

(if anyone disagrees with this opinion, can you limit it to the first two, as I've had rather a day of it)

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

See my earlier post CJS - it wasn't a 'long standing member'

 

I see...thank you for clarifying - threads appear before I reply, hence not all the information is immediately to hand - I found your post by opening a new window alongside this one. I suppose this occurs when a number of people post on the same topic as only a few show below the post reply window.

 

I think some of the forum issues relate to everything being taken very literally. What offends one does not another, and it degrades soon after. A better retort may be to clarify things, but in the heat of it, I expect typing occurs quicker than reading clearly.