Seriously, I'm sick of him. yes, I am impatient, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that Chad is nothing more than a thoughtless troll. Since his arrival, political debates are reduced to a parade of sickening and pointless absurdities.
To paraphrase what the level of Hatrack's political discourse has been reduced to you, I present Monty Python's Debate Clinic:
quote: M: (Knock) A: Come in. M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument? A: I told you once. M: No you haven't. A: Yes I have. M: When? A: Just now. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: You didn't A: I did! M: You didn't! A: I'm telling you I did! M: You did not!! A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? M: Oh, just the five minutes. A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did. M: You most certainly did not. A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you. M: No you did not. A: Yes I did. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: No you didn't. A: Yes I did. M: You didn't. A: Did. M: Oh look, this isn't an argument. A: Yes it is. M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction. A: No it isn't. M: It is! A: It is not. M: Look, you just contradicted me. A: I did not. M: Oh you did!! A: No, no, no. M: You did just then. A: Nonsense! M: Oh, this is futile! A: No it isn't. M: I came here for a good argument. A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument. M: An argument isn't just contradiction. A: It can be. M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A: No it isn't. M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' A: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't. M: It is. A: Not at all. M: Now look. A: (Rings bell) Good Morning. M: What? A: That's it. Good morning. M: I was just getting interested. A: Sorry, the five minutes is up. M: That was never five minutes! A: I'm afraid it was. M: It wasn't.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Wow, that's really uncalled for.
I've been very very careful not to call names to anyone since my first day I said "liberal". To NOT insult them.
I post my views. I give my reasons. I don't say anyone has to like them or agree with them.
I do ask that you don't attack me personally because I extend the same offer to you.
It appears because I have STRONG views that some may disagree with and I POST them that makes me a "TROLL".
It appears that some people have the idea that they can post their "hot topics" and it's not trolling.
I invite you to go back through my posts for the last couple of days and tell me where I have broken some rule that would even warrant your post.
If having a dissenting opinion, posting it, and defending it without personally attacking other posters is a crime. Then I am guilty as charged.
If you are looking for the people calling names such as "Troll", and "a$$" and "ignorant" and "____head" and "idiot" then you are barking up the wrong tree. But if you look around at the other barkers, you will see who they are.
Until you can learn to respect dissenting opinions and other posters, you really have no basis from which to fling your accusations.
[ September 24, 2004, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by mek (Member # 740) on :
quote: Wow, that's really uncalled for.
No it isn't!
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
That'a great, mek.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Making flippant attacks on my person without listing ANY basis for your accusations is what?
What defines a "Troll":
Would me bumping a thread where I was the last poster after 24 hours, just to try and get someone to respond really classify me as a troll?
What about if no one responds or counters my argument, would me posting some sort of "I guess I win" acclamation classify as trolling?
Are those the actions of a Troll?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:What about if no one responds or counters my argument, would me posting some sort of "I guess I win" acclamation classify as trolling?
Depends. Are you serious?
Because when no one counters your argument, you know you've said something utterly ridiculous. I know I've killed a few threads that way. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stroman, I haven't decided yet that you're a troll. I think there's potential for good Hatrackerness in there. That would pretty cool for that to flourish.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Bless his heart...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't give full approval yet: he hasn't made me laugh.
[ September 24, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What about if no one responds or counters my argument, would me posting some sort of "I guess I win" acclamation classify as trolling?
Unless you've responded to every counter to every one of your posts here (which I know you haven't), I'd say you have to either accept that you "lost" in those threads lacking such counters or be a hypocrite.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Wow, that's really uncalled for.
What makes you think anybody's talking about you?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The fact he put my name "Chad" in the original post seem to affirm that his attack is directed at me.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And maybe it's just me, but saying "______ is a thoughtless troll" about any member of this board is probably the worst form of "flame fishing" there is.
I'm starting to wonder if those shouting "Troll" are in fact doing ...what by posting such?
Either way, the whole thread is uncalled for and inappropriate.
It's an attack leveled directly at another member of the board.
I ask if name calling of other members is appropriate?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:I ask if name calling of other members is appropriate?
Sure, I do that all the time.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Chad you're just way too flamboyant for your own good.
You need to post your thoughts in invisible font like I do...that way no one knows you’re posting.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
You're also a n00b. No one can appreciate an agressive n00b.
Sit tight for about a year or so, then post as you wish. You'll fit right in.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Flamboyant. That's a new one. I like it.
I am the Flamboyant Chad!!! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Better that than Dangling.
Seriously, though, Chad, the problem is not that you tick people off when you post "I guess I win" when you've effectively countered all their arguments; the problem is that you've posted stuff like "I guess I win" when you THINK you've effectively countered their arguments, when in reality you've clearly misunderstood their argument in the first place.
It's like playing checkers with somebody, randomly hopping your first piece around the board regardless of rules or color, yelling "King me!" four or five times, then sweeping all your opponent's pieces to the floor -- and, when they say, "Hey, you can't do that," turning to them and saying, "Don't be a poor loser, man."
[ September 24, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Since when have threads making unbased attacks on individual Jatraqueros become acceptable?
If arguing poorly makes one trollish and deserving of a ban, most Jatraqueros should have been banned long ago (at least those who go into serious threads.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*considers* Except for a few unfortunate and flaming exceptions, appellations of troll are rarely unbased.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Almost all troll accusations here on founded on little more than a new person being annoying to some members. There are more than a few of those accused who have later gone on to become valued members. And I suspect there are more than a few who got mad and left, but would have gone on to become valued members.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I will admit that I do not view every thread, and that I've only seen a little of CStroman, but I've been a bit appalled at the immediate rejection I've seen.
If anyone can post me some good reason as to why this was earned, I'll understand. I know it can sometimes be earned.
But this was too borderline to get the jump, IMHO.
Now, I accept that Chad could be a cedonym, and in that case we should stop interacting.
But I do not think he is a troll. I think he could be educated, but clearly with all the condescension that has gone on here that can't happen. I've seen too much "We've already taken down this argument, refuted that fact, etc and it is stupid. You are an embarrassment to your cause, etc" Not very nice, eh?
Unless this is a cedonym, this is a real person we are condemning and putting down. Lets get off our high horse here and try a little teaching before we throw the guy to the flames.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I didn't ask because I had done either of those two things above.
I asked because the original poster had done exactly the two things I mentioned in the "Drugs" thread here.
I have never proclaimed myself winner directly or indirectly of any thread.
And I have never bumped any thread fishing for responses (as he did).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Honestly, I think if CStroman goes, Thor would have to go (again).
That said, I have a similar opinion as kat's, except my bar is much lower. No laughing necessary.
-Bok
[ September 24, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
*hands Chaeron a long, crooked, strap-on rubber nose and a broomstick*
We've heard you cackle, but can you fly?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The fact he put my name "Chad" in the original post seem to affirm that his attack is directed at me.
Oh. Missed that. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That's ok.
I'm just wondering where "serious" name calling fall in under the rules for the site.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't think Chad has been a troll for some time. He just has ideas a lot of you(us) don't like, but that's not being a troll. If he would just, for the love of all that is holy, stop typing things in every other post in ALL caps, it would really be appreciated.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Unless you're talking to me. Then I always win. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would say that the name-calling you have recieved is generally not accepted.
But you have to understand why it's happening.
We really like to think of Hatrack as a gathering of friends of the Cards. We are all sitting down in their living room. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we get upset, but we always try to be civil.
Then you barge in, yelling, and making demands. You get upset that people aren't really hearing your arguments, but you do not appear to be really listening to others. Your tone is so abrasive that even those that agree with you on the issues (as I tend to) get embarassed by your behavior.
We keep trying different ways to get the point across to you that you are coming across rude and boorish.
Maybe you should take a step back and see how the other posters here on the 'rack deal with each other. Take some time to get a feel for the place. Hatrack has a place for you, but as with any other social situation, you have to learn the unspoken rules of behavior.
Good luck.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks MPH. I appreciate the advice.
It's much more effective than the "you're an a$$" type responses I have been given.
As such I am more apt to "heed" it.
Likewise with the CAPS. I will try to lay off of them and use quotations instead. Or italics.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Itallics are fine, as is bolding. But all caps comes across as yelling.
Sometimes it is appropriate, but not often.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
MPH RAWKS!
j/k Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You mean I don't really? Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
actually, you know what? I agree with CStroman, here.
And by the way, that monty python thing was BEYOND hilarious.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Man, the more Chad posts the more I think he's just fiesty. Which is annoying, because the only time I get to bust out insults like "flake off, dillweed!" is where there's a troll about. Ironically, not being a troll has ruined my fun.
You just can't win on this board, can you? Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It was funny and I have no problem with it.
There's a difference in saying "Chad your arguments remind me of this"
and,
"Chad's a thoughtless troll."
The second half of the post is what the post should have been.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
mph is eloquent and persuasive above. He speaks well for Hatrack as a whole on this, I think.
I think fugu13's post from another thread is appropriate to block-quote here. He too is reasonable, eloquent, and well-spoken.
What do you think of this, Chad? Make sense? (comments, questions?)
quote:Chad, almost no thoughts are not okay to post. The key is how you post them. Posts which insult other posters, posts which show a disregard for other people's points against you (you have in particular been guilty of this one, making many posts talking about how people aren't refuting your points, when you've ignored many calm refutations of your basic logic skills and kept insisting you were absolutely correct), these sorts of posts should not be made.
And to clarify a bit about the last. If you disagree with someone, but can't support the why at all, you shouldn't post that they are wrong. This does not mean its not okay to disagree without a reasoned argument, this means you shouldn't be saying they are wrong without a reasoned argument. It would be perfectly okay to give your position without reference to their position.
Furthermore, Because someone does not refute you does not mean you are right, or they think you're right, or you have won the argument. It may very well mean, as it has for several of your posts, that your argument is considered too simplistically wrong to bother refuting, particularly given your behavior of ignoring people's refutations. It may also mean the person just doesn't feel like posting, or have time. Many of us are busy people, and many of us also recognize that even if we are right, inflammatory discussions can make us worked up and tense, situations we prefer to avoid.
We really do think of Hatrack as a virtual equivalent of the Card's living room. The mantra (as per the User Agreement) is "We speak with passion, we listen with respect." Listening with respect doesn't mean you have to agree, but it does mean you exert the Principle of Charity (see 5b) and refrain from the written equivalent of spiking and dancing in the end zone. That's appropriate for flamey forums, but not for here.
We don't always live up to the ideals ourselves, but we try to do so. Makes for more interesting dinner conversation and less Unmaking in the world.
[ September 24, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That is correct. Often when a thread gets too heated, I just back out of it. I enjoy discussion, but I don't enjoy arguing. Just because I don't respond to somebody doens't mean I don't have a response. It's not a competition to see who can win.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I'll add my agreement to mph and fugu13...both very well put. Chad initially came across as rude, boorish, and...not sure what word I'm looking for...smug? self-righteous? closed-minded? something like that, anyway. But as he's posted more, I've started to see glimmers of potential good Hatracker under there I'm still pretty much a n00b myself, but I like to think I have a pretty good impression of how this community operates and how to (and how not to) go about finding my place in it.
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
Wow... you all call chad this and no one even calls ME this... That's friggin AWESOME... However now i must change the way i post... I still agree with Chad on all of this.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I agree with that post. I think we ALL could do with a self imposed rule of that.
I agree with pretty much the whole thing.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Hey, Stray.
My basic yardstick: Is this person authentically trying to understand and communicate with another person, or are they trying to score points off of them?
If you come across as sincerely trying, people will overlook a lot and forgive even more. If you come across as ticking off points in some ego list that has nothing to do with building an actual relationship, people will react to that negatively -- even if, during the point-getting, you toe the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
yeah.. i think it would be pretty stupid to try and ignore / kick out/ get rid of chad in any way... because if you did, I would have to take on the roll of the annoying guy. And believe me... you don't want that. I may be 19, but my mind doesn't know that. My mind thinks I'm twelve... and i know how to be annoying... heh heh
*hides and eats cheese sticks*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Cool, Chad. The next step as a Hatracker is to start working on helping others live up to the ideal when they are not doing so.
That is, when someone here falls [i.e., does not live up to that ideal], the appropriate response is to stick out a hand and help them up, or at least look away so as to minimize their embarrassment, rather than pointing and laughing. Or jumping up and down, wagging your butt in his or her face to demonstrate your superior skills of balance.
Again, none of us live up to this all the time. But next time someone insults you by misreading your intention, even though this would take a lot of strong character, try something like rephrasing your point so that it is more clearly understood and (gently, in a friendly way) ask for clarification. You'll get loads of positive support.
[ September 24, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Turgan, honestly, it's no big deal. We'd just ignore you.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
BTW, it is emotionally exhausting to be routinely having to turn the other cheek, to be the charitable one in the face of unkindness, and to be always extending yourself more than halfway to meet the other person in the conversation.
You shouldn't have to do this a lot, because other people in the community should be trying to live up to the ideal as well as help out when you are getting quagmired with someone else. Again, we don't always live up to the ideal as a community, but we try. When it works, it's great.
Your entre into the community could provide a nice nitus for reflection and refocusing as a community, I think.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*leans back and sips a cocktail*
Ah... I love Hatrack. A potentially icky situation has once again brought out the great Jatraquero minds who have solved the problem with understanding and respect.
*beams with pleasure*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Hey, Telp.
Just to be clear, I'll defer the "great minds" title to mph and fugu13, as well as any other revered status. I was unaware before recently of being placed by anyone on any sort of pedestal, and I have great and frothing desire to avoid it ever happening again.
Not my cuppa, not by any measure.
(Don't make me tell you to do anatomically impossible things to yourself, Telpy. With due respect to Kwea, I've done it before, and I might just do it again. )
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:That is correct. Often when a thread gets too heated, I just back out of it. I enjoy discussion, but I don't enjoy arguing. Just because I don't respond to somebody doens't mean I don't have a response. It's not a competition to see who can win.
I'd like to say "ditto" to that. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:anatomically impossible things
Nothing is anatomically impossible if you happen to be a tree.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: It's much more effective than the "you're an a$$" type responses I have been given.
Just for clarification purposes flamboyant and n00b do not equal big ass in my book.
I'm trying to avoid 's . If I had not been avoiding 's I would have added a to my post.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh, I liked your post. There's a tone that says I am joking/making light. And there's a tone that says I hate/dislike you as a person and am posting my opinion of you.
Now I am the Flamboyant Chad!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<Puts CT on a pedestal> Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Kiss my sweet patootie, AK. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Is that like a hanging Chad?
Doh you beat me to it.
No, it's closer to a dimpled Chad.
But is the wrong gender to be a Pregnant Chad.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
But CT, that's so anatomically possible! Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
You haven't seen my patootie!
*ba-dum-dum
[ September 24, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Chad is Rad Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
In fact, I think I have. There was a picture you linked to once....
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*pouts* I missed a picture of Sara's Patootie?
That is not fair.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[wistfully considers the fair and the not-fair, the being and the nothingness which are too abstract to be visible to the naked eye (oh, if only one had a can of spray-paint!)]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
heh heh heh *stalks off and grabs some spray paint*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That shirt is AWSOME! Seriously it's like a "Vote for Pedro" shirt.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm gonna hafta buy it, frame it and put it on my wall.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[anyone else musing on world peace?]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Yup!
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[considers the many benefits of a beneficent Tatianic dictatorship]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Woooowee! <saving these for poster[ior]ity> <<<<<<<<<<<<<Sara>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You r0xx0rz!
[ September 24, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*ogles Sara*
What a pair of cutie patooties. Seriously...you and your hair are beautiful. Very pretty hair.
I ordered two of each print.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
::pout:: I can't see them.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[ponders the seen and unseen]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[puzzles on whether my holding the tall end of the stick is of moral consequence to saxon75]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I have to say you'd be getting the short end of the stick since I'm pretty much the opposite.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
As charming as you are here saxon75...I find that impossible to believe.
*I had a big Hershey's Chocolate Bar today folks*
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So, basically what you're saying is that I'm so uncouth here that you have a hard time seeing how I could be worse in person?
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Yep...that's exactly what I'm saying.
*wacks Saxon up side the head*
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
saxon needs to grow some self esteem. the only times he's not charming are when he's whining about not being charming.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
celia is so weird. She only likes me when I abuse her.
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
Harder.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I can see the attraction in that.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So, celia, would you prefer that the next time you call me I just let the awkward silences stand instead of filling them by talking about how awkward I am? Personally, I think the latter is funnier (and you were laughing), but I'm pretty good at not talking. In fact, I'm apparently charming enough that I can be charming without talking at all.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Eh. Still can't see it and I'm not sure why.
Oh I see. *un*publiced them.
[ September 24, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Isn't she a tease PSI?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[posts edited to reflect a long stretch of deep, meditative, cerebral silences ]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Ha! I love Sara.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Stop it Sara!
Behave!
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I have an irreverent image to maintain, you know. A vested interest nowadays.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
When I get copies that I ordered I'm going to make posters for everyone at Hatrack.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[You do and I'll stand on my hands, walk backward in time, and Unmake every brownie in existence. And a couple cupcakes, too. ]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*shudders*
No one has ever, ever said that to me. I'm scared. I truly believe you can do it.
I want one brownie for each picture.
*pat-pat don't worry, I don't have enough money right now to buy anything let alone gorgeous pictures of some scary lady and her husband*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Deal!
[I edit for you, my little bon-bon. It was the most vicerally ghastly image from a movie I'd ever seen, impossible to forget. I almost threw up in the theatre. I'd never do that. But I would try to walk backward in time, just for the heck of it. Totally irresponsible. ]
[ September 24, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I don't watch scary movies...much.
So I'm easily spooked.
*still shivering*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Aw, Tammy, I'm sooo sorry.
Here, a story:
I was young and gullible once, and I had an older brother. This is not a good combination. He convinced me that there was a mirrorworld in the looking glass (after we'd read Alice's Adventures), where I could pass in and the Alternate Sara would jump in and take my place, leaving me free to read and play all day.
Luckily, he had a conscience, and he stopped me from jumping off the couch straight at the mirror. I've always wondered, though, what would have really happened.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
What a meanie he was.
I had a mean cousin who told me scary stories. She lived in an attic room. She told me there was an old lady that lived in there. The old lady came out at night and used her brush. She even showed me the long supposedly gray strands of hair.
It never dawned on me at the time that the old lady's hair could have very well been Rachel's blonde hair.
See...that's not even that scary and it certainly isn't that believable and yet I still get a little nervous in attics.
I've learned that Chocolate heals all wounds - send brownies ASAP.
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
*Spraypaints on the wall*
"BY THE TIME YOU'VE READ THIS, YOU'VE ALREADY READ IT."
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ok, now that this thread has deteriorated into fluff, I can meaninglessly defend my statements. Firstly, Chad's posts are either intentionally inflamatory, or display a remarkable lack of reflective thought. I'll give Chad the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's not as thoughtless as I have previously assumed, and that he is merely seeking attention, a sin we are all occationally guilty of, but perhaps not to the same extent.
I also think it's possible to be a troll unknowingly here. This is because trolling is the status quo in alot of places, and Hatrack tries to be different. Therefore, what is perfectly acceptable on Fark would be abborrent here.
As for the comparisons to Thor, I think that's somewhat unfair to Thor. While he may have been deservedly banned in the past, now his occationally trollish posting doesn't have much of a negative impact on the board. His "Which drug users are our enemies?" thread was inflamatory to begin with, but when I tried to steer it into a serious debate about drug policy, he didn't try to bring himself back to the center of attention by continuing to post incendiary comments. Considering the thread was Thor's and the topic is an important one for him, I think it displays restraint that Chad currently lacks.
The thread that prompted me to post this was "One Nation, Under Whom?" I would normally have wanted to post in that thread, but the thread was not about the pledge of allegience or the relationship between religion and the state, the thread was about Chad, and whattever he had to say. His posts were frequently angry and more than a few are rather incoherent. He refuses to respond in a meaningful way to what others have to say. His behavior is not unsual for many places online, but I like Hatrack because it's different. It's exceptional in that. To give an example of what Chad has said that is corroding meaningful debate on this forum:
quote:Also "Aids Research" is paid for with Tax Money, but is pretty much a 100% eradicable disease. But people aren't willing to do what it takes to beat it. It's "Find a cure for me" because no one likes being told to change their lifestyle.
And in response to people who pointed out kids are born with the disease:
quote: Your mother won't have it if she doesn't have sex with anyone that has it and if she doesn't use drugs.
In response to someone mentioning a friend with Aids:
quote: Also, did your friend get it from transfusion, or lifestyle choice (sex/drugs)? Just wondering.
Read the thread. His habit of quoting people out of context and ignoring the substance of their argument is a classic trolling strategy.
<typo>
[ September 24, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Ok, now that this thread has deteriorated into fluff, I can meaninglessly defend my statements.
I meant no disrespect to you. I know you know that.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'd never do that. But I would try to walk backward in time, just for the heck of it. Totally irresponsible.