Arguing over who started a particular flame war or in the case of our sometimes overly sensitive American Allies any brush or bush fires, but should people who constantly enter debates with no other set purpose but to lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the presenter of any given point of view as opposed to those who lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the arguments themselves I'm not sure if I speak for anyone else, but its getting beyond a joke lately and could those people be summarily execu.. I mean could they simply be expunged from the debates forum.
Before I start sounding like the worlds greatest hypocrite on the subject as I do on occasion enjoy making random assaults on any perceived stuffiness or cases of people possibly taking themselves a little bit too seriously maybe, but I also hopefully try and commit to a particular line of argument and will debate it too its logical conclusion if the opposing views continue in like manner.
If it can be shown that in a persons past 100 posts, that the vast majority of them have been written solely to attack the player and not the play, then should those people be simply banned?
Originally posted by kmax87Nah, it's much better to ignore the insults as far as possible and not dignify them with a response.
Arguing over who started a particular flame war or in the case of our sometimes overly sensitive American Allies any brush or bush fires, should people who constantly enter debates with no other set purpose but to lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the presenter of any given as opposed to lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the arguments themselv ritten solely to attack the player and not the play, then should those people be simply banned?
That way we can still have the odd friendly insult without worrying about being kicked off.
Originally posted by mrstabbyMy lawyers Lecture, Ridicule, Harangue and Disparages will be in touch!
Nah, it's much better to ignore the insults as far as possible and not dignify them with a response.
That way we can still have the odd friendly insult without worrying about being kicked off.
Some people feel pretty strongly about some subjects and will vent sometimes. Also understand that the written word is very often understood completely different than the same words spoken. I wouldn't worry about it too much. On the other hand the suggestion that someone monitor a person's last hundred posts to judge behavior is a bit out there. Imagine if someone informed you one day that after a hundred posts we do not agree with your beliefs or thoughts and as a result you are banned.
Even the main debates thread has as a title "Potentially heated discussions on topics such as........
Originally posted by kmax87No it adds flavour and occasionally these idiots provide a valuable perspective.
Arguing over who started a particular flame war or in the case of our sometimes overly sensitive American Allies any brush or bush fires, but should people who constantly enter debates with no other set purpose but to lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the presenter of any given point of view as opposed to those who lecture, ridicule, harangue and disp ...[text shortened]... ritten solely to attack the player and not the play, then should those people be simply banned?
Anyway don't sit on the fence, your top three for the chop?
Mine list is:
1. Dimjim
2. Dimjim's wife
3. Dimjim's sister
I realise that 2 of these are probably the same person.
Originally posted by kmax87let's have exemptions for global warming, greenpeace, and pacifism supporters.
Arguing over who started a particular flame war or in the case of our sometimes overly sensitive American Allies any brush or bush fires, but should people who constantly enter debates with no other set purpose but to lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the presenter of any given point of view as opposed to those who lecture, ridicule, harangue and disp ritten solely to attack the player and not the play, then should those people be simply banned?
Originally posted by kmax87Don't be shy girl! .. name names.
Arguing over who started a particular flame war or in the case of our sometimes overly sensitive American Allies any brush or bush fires, but should people who constantly enter debates with no other set purpose but to lecture, ridicule, harangue and disparage the presenter of any given point of view as opposed to those who lecture, ridicule, harangue and disp ...[text shortened]... ritten solely to attack the player and not the play, then should those people be simply banned?
Originally posted by demonseedThe public humiliation of pointing out my dropped 'e' might cause a counter suit by their parent company and they never lose.
Then you might hear from my solicitors, "Dewey, Cheatham and Howe."
Btw, preemptive has an extra 'e.'
Expect to be served forthwith by "Howe, Dewey, Cheatem & Wynn"
Originally posted by kmax87You appear to be suffering from a psychotic disorder, perhaps induced by over-indulgence in the practice you refer to in the title of this thread?
lately
Thales2
and that other guy Thales2
as well as but not forgetting that particularly annoying Thales2
A list of one.
Persons like you often have enormous chips on their shoulders owing to the unfortunate manner in which they have been brought up, and are best ignored.
Originally posted by kmax87The offending user tends to be banned after the initial trickle of complaints becomes a flood. Annoyingly, the user tends to reappear under a different although vaguely similar name after a certain period. This might indicate mental instability bordering on psychosis. Of course, such persons often have enormous chips on their shoulders owing to the unfortunate manner in which they have been brought up, and are best ignored.
If it can be shown that in a persons past 100 posts, that the vast majority of them have been written solely to attack the player and not the play, then should those people be simply banned?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou certainly are a specific case of the latter type since all you can do is to repeat phrases like a parrot. As I recently reminded you we have plenty of your clones in the UK; supporters of that lying little creep, Blair.
The offending user tends to be banned after the initial trickle of complaints becomes a flood. Annoyingly, the user tends to reappear under a different although vaguely similar name after a certain period. This might indicate mental instability bordering on psychosis. Of course, such persons often have enormous chips on their shoulders owing to the unfortunate manner in which they have been brought up, and are best ignored.
Originally posted by Thales2Not parrotry: mockery. --You're sorely lacking in insight. I despise Blair.
You certainly are a specific case of the latter type since all you can do is to repeat phrases like a parrot. As I recently reminded you we have plenty of your clones in the UK; supporters of that lying little creep, Blair.