Adam, Eve and T. Rex

[Bloomfield]

Jerry,
As with Flying Cursor: You attacked me after raising some specific questions that you chose not answer. Then you did also not respond to the questions i posed to you after you attacked me.

Is your modus operandi similar to flying cursor, in that you both appear to attack without apparent rationale, but then not manage to muster a thought out response when confronted with specific questions about your motivation and behavior?

Here's the last exchange in case you have amnesia as well:

Quote:
Your posts generally are annoying as hell

then don't read them

Quote:
Don't start with me, Blackwood.

Seriously.

Don't stir.


i am not stirring, i asked some specific questions which you chose not to answer which is your perogative but know that your response does not come across as substantive, but rather as evasive.

Is your position that anyone who posts an opinion other than yours is to stop posting?

Quote:
At this time, to come to the board to see what my friends are talking about

then read you friends' posts and don't read posts that upset you.
Do you want only your friends to be permitted to post?
I don't understand your rationale or motivation at all....

I've no stake in this, blackwood, but if you are interested on how this little exchange strikes a bystander: Jerry had it about right. And asking someone whether it is their position that "anyone who posts an opinion other than yours is to stop posting?" (and to pretend to expect an answer) is a bit silly.

[Blackwood]

I thought Jim's advice was wise, so I took it

I might be mistaken, but that seems highly convenient.

I've explained the recent thinness of my skin further up the thread.

so you cede the points raised?
Care to apologize for the attacks as a result of the "thinness of your skin"?

Nothing personal either, just trying to understand...

[Blackwood]

Jerry had it about right

Care to be specifc? In what aspect? Was it this one?

Jerry wrote::
Quote:
Give it a rest, Jack.

Blackwood wrote:
I think Jack has every right to defend himself if he feels attacked.

Jerry wrote:
Don't start with me, Blackwood.

Seriously.

Don't stir.

Bloomberg, can you show me one single post in the thread where Jerry referred to the subject of the original post? Just one? If he was not posting about the subject at all why did he get involved in the thread? What was the motivation?

In that context how "did he have it right" according to you?

Please be specific.

And asking someone whether it is their position that "anyone who posts an opinion other than yours is to stop posting?" (and to pretend to expect an answer) is a bit silly.

Jerry seemed to not like Jack posting an opinion although he did not say why. As Jack didn't address Jerry in his comments originally it appear that Jerry had an issue with Jack posting period. As a result the question has vailidity even though i agree it would seem silly in normal circumstances, but silly behavior inspires silly questions...

[The Weekenders]

Click.

[Bloomfield]

Bloomberg, can you show me one single post in the thread where Jerry referred to the subject of the original post? Just one?

Great to see someone take up the fight against threadjacking. We need enterprising young fellows to keep us all in line.

And it's always a thought that you can avoid getting answers by not asking the question. This was your second post in this thread:

Maybe Nanohedron would care to outline his list of approved topics to post on this forum? I.e what he considers spam and what he considers to be approved, appropriate topics?
Does Nanohedron have any substantive argument to make or is he limited to insult without any intellectual foundation?

Why are you so baffled now:

If he was not posting about the subject at all why did he get involved in the thread? What was the motivation?

I think Jerry got involved to answer your questions:

Maybe Nanohedron would care to outline his list of approved topics to post on this forum? I.e what he considers spam and what he considers to be approved, appropriate topics?
Does Nanohedron have any substantive argument to make or is he limited to insult without any intellectual foundation?

Interesting juxtaposition.

Nano's one of my favorite posters, BTW. "Posts: 6626" I think there's a pretty good chance he's pulling your leg.

Best wishes,
Jerry

In that context how "did he have it right" according to you?

Please be specific.

Here:

I'm with Herbivore on this one. Mr. Gilder, you're stirring the pot. Trolling, if you will, and it undercuts your credibility when you try to defend yourself against the criticism you attract. You're making a choice to draw people's fire and then pretend innocence and victimhood.

Let me add that you can troll even if you don't intend to start a fight, if you close your eyes to the fact that your post will provoke and annoy people. Recognizing what posts are likely to do that (even if we don't intend to a provoke or annoy) is part of the basic skill set required for message-board posting, imho (everyone gets it wrong sometimes, of course).

[Blackwood]

Eh Bloomfield, I think you are confused. There was no negative repsonse to Jerry's original post there from my side . Nano and I cleared things up very amicably later in the thread if you care to investigate. Fact remains there were no posts directly related to the artical I posted from Jerry.

But that's a side issue. The issue of "trolling" seems very silly in a forum that is intended to discuss off topic issues. Since politics and religion are part of the spectrum it will be impossible to post any subject or opinion without getting someone upset or of a contrary opinion. As a result you would have to ban each subject and each poster. That's just silly.

At this point I believe this is an effort to silence one member here who has some strong opinions but finds himself attacked often not on the substance of the issue he raises but rather attacked for his opinions.

Weak, very weak...

[Bloomfield]

At this point I believe this is an effort to silence one member here who has some strong opinions but finds himself attacked often not on the substance of the issue he raises but rather attacked for his opinions.

Weak, very weak...

Weak, very weak is right in character for me. You haven't been around long enough to hear all the stories, I guess, but let's just say it won't surprise anyone.

As for the effort to silence one member here who has some strong opinions: That's rubbish, if you mean it as "silenced because of the substance of the opinons expressed." Note also that trolling and political/opinion don't necessarily relate to each other. You can troll without even expressing a political opinion (for example, by posting pictures of crying babies). You can also (as I have mentioned) troll without intending to, for example, by posting jokes that aren't funny (to anyone but you):

Careful, Sven, the people down in the village here at C&F are on their way with torches and pickforks. They think any religious/political threads are going to destroy their way of life.

[jGilder]

As for the effort to silence one member here who has some strong opinions: That's rubbish, if you mean it as "silenced because of the substance of the opinons expressed." Note also that trolling and political/opinion don't necessarily relate to each other. You can troll without even expressing a political opinion (for example, by posting pictures of crying babies). You can also (as I have mentioned) troll without intending to, for example, by posting jokes that aren't funny (to anyone but you):

Careful, Sven, the people down in the village here at C&F are on their way with torches and pickforks. They think any religious/political threads are going to destroy their way of life.

Amazing! Just think of what might have been accomplished if all this effort was directed towards the actual topic instead of being wasted over a sarcastic quip intended to poke a little light-hearted fun at a previous thread. (as if that hasn't been done before) This is a low point for the C&F message board indeed; it's mob mentality pure and simple. You members of the posse really need to remove the chiff from your shoulders and turn in your guns. Try using a little more common sense and decency, the town's people are getting nervous.

[Bloomfield]

As for the effort to silence one member here who has some strong opinions: That's rubbish, if you mean it as "silenced because of the substance of the opinons expressed." Note also that trolling and political/opinion don't necessarily relate to each other. You can troll without even expressing a political opinion (for example, by posting pictures of crying babies). You can also (as I have mentioned) troll without intending to, for example, by posting jokes that aren't funny (to anyone but you):

Careful, Sven, the people down in the village here at C&F are on their way with torches and pickforks. They think any religious/political threads are going to destroy their way of life.

Amazing! Just think of what might have been accomplished if all this effort was directed towards the actual topic instead of being wasted over a sarcastic quip intended to poke a little light-hearted fun at a previous thread. (as if that hasn't been done before) This is a low point for the C&F message board indeed; it's mob mentality pure and simple. You members of the posse really need to remove the chiff from your shoulders and turn in your guns. Try using a little more common sense and decency, the town's people are getting nervous.

Well, yes. Lighthearted and funny little quip likening us to a lynch mob.

Anyway: Sorry to drag it up again, you have a point, we should give it a rest. Perhaps blackwood will see that asking people to explain their views (in order to expose their shortcomings) isn't always helpful. I'll take the common-sense comment to heart. To hell with decency, however.

[Blackwood]

Perhaps blackwood will see that asking people to explain their views (in order to expose their shortcomings) isn't always helpful

For clarification: I only ask people to explain their views that post unprovoked attacks that are off topic unrelated to the subject posted.
Anyone is free to offer an opinion or not

Weak, very weak is right in character for me

Also for clarification: I did not imply you personally rather the string of attacks I observed..

Jack made a joke in his post in reference to another thread...

[Bloomfield]

Jack made a joke in his post in reference to another thread...

I thought Jack had requested we let this one slide?

But since insist: it was that reference that made the joke offensive.

[Bloomfield]

Perhaps blackwood will see that asking people to explain their views (in order to expose their shortcomings) isn't always helpful

For clarification: I only ask people to explain their views that post unprovoked attacks that are off topic unrelated to the subject posted.
Anyone is free to offer an opinion or not

Unprovoked attacks are always off topic. What about provoked attacks? And how do you contend with the fact that what seems provoked to one seems unprovoked to another?

Of course you are not "only asking people to explain their views." Unprovoked attacks aren't "views" and you ask your "questions" to drive home the point that you think what people are posting are unprovoked attacks. You might as well just say so. Putting them in question form "Are you saying no one is allowed to post an opinion?" is a bit disingenious and it gets old quickly. Also, in terms of message boards it just gives people an opportunity to keep at it.

[Cynth]

I mean, do you guys want some martinis or something? It's gin, right? With just a splash of vodka and shake with ice? And then some green olives? I can do that. Please let me make you some martinis!!!!

You can disregard this, that will be okay too.

[Bloomfield]

Sigh. What I hate about these spats is that I start sounding like such an ass.

[Denny]

sucked in again