So, are you trying to start a serious discussion with this or...? It's a goofy, stupid picture. What more do you want?
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Lets see...
serious discussion?...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Troll.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
If you want a serious discussion, it's polite and customary to offer your own opinion and actually start the discussion yourself. Why should anyone else bother commenting when you yourself can't be bothered?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Meh, I'll start.
Do I like it? Well, I don't dislike it. It's about as funny as the average political cartoon. It seems to be expressing a view that Bush went to war to curry support in an election year and he'll likely do it again. If this is what it means, it's pretty silly. Bush was in office before there was a war. He took us to war well before the election for his second term, and he can't serve another term so another war would be ludicruous with that as a goal.
So, as humor it's probably average. (some will say below average, but I've seen a lot of bad humor so I can't really give it that low of a mark.)
As political commentary it's too muddled to really be effective.
Was that what you wanted? Or was it more along the lines of "Yeah, that Bush is sure a war monger" or "Stop Bush Bashing you pinko commie!"?
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
I just wanted to see well, mostly the americans commenting about this, since im not American i didnt feel the need to comment. =)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like I said. People, Leo is transparently a troll.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
ok...
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, so far, it's looking that way.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, so far, it's looking that way.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, so far, it's looking that way.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So quid, how do you think it's looking?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
She appears to think it's looking "that way" when clearly it could be looking "this way" or even "over yonder".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: So quid, how do you think it's looking?
Funny.
On a related note: Tom, why do you think Leo is transparently a troll? I checked some of his other posts and found them to be somewhat juvenile but not particularly rude or demeaning (at least intentionally). Isn't that what makes someone a troll?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm fairly sure that a number of his posts have not only been deliberately rude but also inflammatory. And he's coy about it, which suggests he's aware of the potential. Those two traits in combination tend to trigger my trolldar.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Seno:
TomD can call newcomers and others trolls because he is Hatrack member #124 and king of the Hatrack forum.
Krank
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I guess I didn't look at enough of his posts. He just seems to be part and parcel with the recent Reticulization of Hatrack (maybe I should call it the youth movement). I haven't been around long enough to know: do these things come and go in waves? (sort of a british invasion, except of adolescents who can't be bothered to formulate full sentences, let alone well thought out ones?)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: TomD can call newcomers and others trolls because he is Hatrack member #124 and king of the Hatrack forum.
So, I've been wondering a long time: 1) Does anyone have a member number lower than Wendybird? 2) How many users were registered "A Long Time Ago!" (I only know of Wendybird and Yozhik, among the regular posters).
Tom seems to be the first (among regular posters) of those registered in the modern era.
3) What event sparked the "modern era" (shift to dated registration)
4) Why is Orson Scott Card's member number so high (relatively)? Did the site exist as a fan site before it was an authorized fan site?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) Yes. 2) 120. #121, Yossarian, has a date. 3) The move to a new forum software. 4) When the site moved to new forum software, the existing users (which numbered around two hundred at that time) were moved over in (IIRC, three) alphabetical batches regardless of their actual date of registration. OSC's account was one of those.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My original number was #126. But that doesn't really count as I was gone for a long time.
Edit to add: this was back in the spring of 1999.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 1) Yes.
I previously did a spot check and only found "The user number you entered either does not exist or does not have any current posts."
Just now I checked and found Troubador with a MN of 83. And a registration date!? If his/her MN is less than Wendybird's, why does s/he have a reg date when Wendybird does not? Did s/he register later but receive an earlier MN when the move to the new software was made?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 4) When the site moved to new forum software, the existing users (which numbered around two hundred at that time) were moved over in (IIRC, three) alphabetical batches regardless of their actual date of registration. OSC's account was one of those.
So, it's always been his backyard (or frontroom, or whatever). Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It probably has to do with the initial randomness of the batches. I wouldn't trust any stats below member #200 or so.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It probably has to do with the initial randomness of the batches. I wouldn't trust any stats below member #200 or so.
I knew you didn't really have 24,000 posts.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Pooey, then I'm a troll aren't I?
Formulating full sentences isn't that hard. See? Just did it. It's the well thought out ones that are difficult.
Such a shame, such a shame. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the point of the "joke" is that Bush goes to war before the elections to make it harder to vote him and his party out of office since they're the war supporters and you should always support your troops in war time.
It's a little silly however, given that Europe is just as gung ho, if not more so, about Iran than we are.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You don't like Europe, do you Lyrhawn?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually, I rather love Europe. My family comes from the Loire valley in France, long ago. I love European history, the culture, the places, and for the most part, the people.
It's the hypocrisy in Europe that I don't like.
In this case however, I'm firmly behind Europe's drive to disarm Iran's nuclear program.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 4) When the site moved to new forum software, the existing users (which numbered around two hundred at that time) were moved over in (IIRC, three) alphabetical batches regardless of their actual date of registration. OSC's account was one of those.
I think what happened is that when the batches were moved over from the old forum the whole member list (including the names of those who had already registered manually) was alphabetized, without folding uppercase and lowercase together. That is, members 1 (Aaron) through 89 (Yozhik) are alphebetized and start with capital letters, and members 90 (ak) through 121 (yossarian) are... you get the idea.
My current hypothesis is that members with a registration date of "A Long Time Ago!" were moved over in one of the batches, while the handful of members from 1 to 121 without this date (like me! ) registered manually. (Incidentally, there are no "Long Time Ago" reg dates past member 121.)
OSC's username, at 209, looks like it was a manual add, as it's past the alphebetized range.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Eh, that one isn't funny.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i thought that one was funnier than the first one. if only because it is pretty true and not completely played out.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Nope, don't like 'em, don't think either deserve comment. Now if that were a picture of a kitty-cat all snuggled up with a gorilla , I would have been much more apt to opine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I bet the gorilla is allergic.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
OH MY GOD HE'S GONNA EAT THE KITTEN!
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I'm still around, and my rego date is definitely *after* I originally joined. I've always been 'Mr Lurk'.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, I was having trouble posting last night. Our internet speeds have been slow and causing a lot of time outs, so when I posted that post above, each time, it apparently timed out for me, didn't show up in the thread, so I posted again.
*sigh*
Yeah, good ol' Sri Lankan internet.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Oh hey, did anyone look at the posting time stamp and the order they're posted in?
9:39 followed by 9:34 followed by 9:25... That's a little strange...
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the point of the "joke" is that Bush goes to war before the elections to make it harder to vote him and his party out of office since they're the war supporters and you should always support your troops in war time.
It's a little silly however, given that Europe is just as gung ho, if not more so, about Iran than we are.
Thank you Lyr.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Pssst Llyrhawn, that becasue their a hell of a lot closer.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I'm fairly sure that a number of his posts have not only been deliberately rude but also inflammatory. And he's coy about it, which suggests he's aware of the potential. Those two traits in combination tend to trigger my trolldar."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man. If you weren't so inconsequential, dude, I might actually say something to you about this bizarrely one-sided vendetta of yours. As it is, though, you're kind of like a frothing Pekinese: noisy, but not particularly worrisome. That said, if you ever want to work through your problems, drop me an email some time. Seriously, I'd be glad to help, and I wouldn't mind getting to the bottom of this resentment of yours somewhere off the forum, where it's less likely to spray the bystanders with urine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
[sadly deleted]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
what makes someone a troll? is it exactly what Tom said(rude, inflammatory and coy)? i'm beginning to worry that i may be a troll. am i?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you're WORRIED that you might be a troll, you're pretty much not a troll by default. That doesn't mean you can't still be an annoying jerk -- not, mind you, that I think you are -- but trolls by their very definition are looking to annoy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
[deleted]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Let's not let this thread get any uglier, please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A troll is someone who's deliberately looking to stir up trouble and hostility, vonk. There are many ways of doing this: posting under false or highly "fictional" identities, posting disingenuously naive statements like "So I hate gay people. Don't you?" and then pretending to be surprised when someone gets upset, etc. Hatrack's had its share of each category, but the most common one here is the "I'll pretend to not understand why someone is angry about what I said, and then yell 'free speech' when I can't keep that up with a straight face any longer" type.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
hmm, i certainly don't create fictional identities (wait, thats not a metaphysical/theological question is it?), i'm not in to intentionally insulting anyone, but i may use the free speech approach. i'll watch myself and make sure not to cross the line.
thanks tom.
(scott - why delete? now i want to know what you said)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Deliberately is the key word - and posting a picture that comments on Bush's war policy is not deliberately trying to stir up trouble. It's not different than starting a thread by claiming "Bush wants to attack Iran now that he attacked Iraq." The post that stirred up trouble here was the one calling someone else a troll.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Lets go tom, good job...
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
ahhh... then yeah, thats me to a T.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shepherd: Pssst Llyrhawn, that becasue their a hell of a lot closer.
True.
But they're also really close to a lot of other problem hot spots that they seem more than willing to let the US take the lead on, which leads me to believe they're serious about Iran because Iran really is a credible threat, otherwise they wouldn't get their hands dirty messing with it.
Bush could never get a war with Iran off the ground anyway, not without major, and I mean frontline, major joint help from, Europe. And not just because we don't have the man power to help with such an action, because really we do, we'd just have to pull it from other theaters of operation. Publicity wise, even his own party would revolt if he launched another go it alone war. The cartoon is silly and unfounded, but slightly amusing just because it's so out there.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Has there been a point other than being rude, inflamatory, and coy in your postings on this thread, TomDavidson? Don't you pretty much troll on every youngster who appears?
Posted by bonniet (Member # 240) on :
What do I get for having 2 registrations under 700?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Congratulations, bonniet! You've just won a brand new waffle iron! Simply send $69.95 to cover shipping and handling, and the chrome stylings of the Ronco Wafflator can be yours!
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Thanks aspectre for your honesty. As you said:
quote:Has there been a point other than being rude, inflamatory, and coy in your postings on this thread, TomDavidson? Don't you pretty much troll on every youngster who appears?
And cudos to Occasional said to Tom D's statement that "I'm fairly sure that a number of his posts have not only been deliberately rude but also inflammatory. And he's coy about it, which suggests he's aware of the potential. Those two traits in combination tend to trigger my trolldar."
quote:Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
As I said yesterday:
quote:TomD can call newcomers and others trolls because he is Hatrack member #124 and king of the Hatrack forum.
Although I don't post much, I still read the forum from time to time and reflect on what members say.
In your pompus piety, TomD, you might think of yourself as the "king of the Hatrach forum," but with your thinly veiled "rude and inflammatory" comments you truly are the "coy" king of the trolls. Your nearly 25,000 posting experience suggests you are "aware of [your] potential."
Krank
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Leaving all else aside, since certainly even the ignorant are apparently entitled to their random speculations on motive, I feel I must point out that I have never claimed to be and do not think of myself as the "king" of Hatrack. Some people tend to project their own insecurities onto what they erroneously perceive to be my comparatively secure position, and this leads them into error.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
ROFL
Take it back Tom...you ain't "coy."
Posted by Peek (Member # 7688) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
peekaboo