Criminality is not synonymous with guilt. They are not interchangeable. You are nonetheless guilty of being a troll. I also do with people like Hype, Joepistile, Tiassa and Spidergoat. None of them are trolls. You are. Big difference is in the substantiation of claims, which claims you regularly make and fail to support. I know. The mods and admins talk to eachother, you know? In the end, James notified you that you were wrong and I was right. How's that working out for you? Fantastic! Now, on this board, you are required to be something more: honest. You have to substantiate your claims. Failure to do so. . . well, you know what happens if you don't. ~String
If I am wrong, I would admit that I am wrong. If you read any of my posts in different subjects, you could see that. I enjoy reading people's opinions on different subjects. Unwelcome? No, it honestly makes me sad. Example: Because I don't agree with American policy in general. You think, your opinion is reasonable. because you are American. And you don't like to hear such remarks about your country. That's understandable. No one would like the sort of thing. In my posts, I tried to chose a way -on purpose- to express my opinions on the idea of different angles. By trying to explain my points from simple conceptions so everyone can relate. Like, what do we understand from 'people', 'culture', 'society'...etc. I tried to point out that what you are calling as your foreign policy, is a certain kind of understanding relied on a certain kind of regard of the world. It's not something new/original, or invented by America. Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire... But it effects all the world. I don't know, may be you think like in this forum, only a minority in the world disagrees with your policy. Actually it's 8 out of 10. I am not counting England and Israel, they're the other two of your allies. So what I am attempting to do? You tell me. Am I trolling? Provoking anyone? Disagreeing just to disagree? Being unreasonable? Being wrong?
I will never understand how anyone discussing an issue according to his knowledge, his conscience and his ability can be accused of this term " trolling ".
Even new bees know what is wrong and what is right otherwise we are all screwed......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .
know your audience you do not have to respond to obvious fools, known imbeciles and have the thread degenerate into inconsequential chatter oh you are a noob Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know. You appear to be ascribing all disagreement with you to cultural bias and ignorance. How would you find out? I guess the trolling issue as described in the OP is not very interesting to people, so we will be talking about something else - SAM's posts, maybe. But there is no principled moderation possible without some kind of consideration of such issues.
alternately, you can take the troll by his ear and force a discussion of his disingenuous rhetoric. why beat around the bush? why are we not naming names? you think this shit is merely an abstraction? you are actually quoting somebody in the op. james to be exact. a guy who is ruining this forum with his malicious and unprincipled vendetta against sam
it isn't so much against sam, it's against her posting style. "if there is to be a brave new world we are the ones that are going to have the hardest time living in it" -gorkon, from startrek "the undiscovered country"
I'd like to focus for a moment on the issue of inflamed and inflammatory posts. I don't think this is simple. Going back to a discussion of some countries foreign policy. Let's say that said policy is somehow related to the deaths of hundreds of people. One can post rather simple denials: 'Oh, that is ridiculous, of course the policy is justified given ___________(9/11 or whatever).' or even 'I think given the threat of the ___________, these raids were justified.' or 'Your accusation is imflammatory.' And these posts can easily be imflammatory, even if they do not raise new atrocities or accusations. Being dullwitted can be inflammatory. Not understanding certain kinds of hypocrisy can be inflammatory. All of which would be clear if a holocaust denier showed up and very calmly and with flame filled posts, denied aspects of the holocaust.
how is it unprincipled? when sam seen she wasn't going to "win" the debate on the use of stun guns what does she do? plays the race card and drags out the old people and people in wheelchairs. she even referred to the stun gun as a "torture device". read all about it here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59815