10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe thread is about "trolls" and why one might be accused of being one. I have offered my insights. I was asking for Grampy Bobby's own insights into the topic/
Can you point out where it makes any references to the content as posted by the OP?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFThen why not simply make reference to the content of his post rather than him personally?
The thread is about "trolls" and why one might be accused of being one. I have offered my insights. I was asking for Grampy Bobby's own insights into the topic/
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFNo they are only two instances since yesterday, i am sure i could find literally thousands
Your "two instances" are presumably " an argument with [a] statistic". And I'm not even sure I know what your argument is.
more if i had the stomach for it.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHis post is about "trolls" as was my question. This whole thread is about "trolls". I have been on-topic throughout. I've offered my insights into the accusations of "trolling". We await Grampy Bobby's insights.
Then why not simply make reference to the content of his post rather than him personally?
Originally posted by FMFNo GB's original post provided a definition,
You mean the mentioning-dead-relatives and other sinister and horrible kinds of stuff? No.
An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed
to upset or disrupt the conversation.
Perhaps your comments casting up GBs alleged self confessed trolling in the spirituality
forum were intended to refresh and edify him?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI stand by my on-topic contributions to this thread. I think I have made pertinent points and made them cogently. No "trolling" has been involved, on my part at least.
No GB's original post provided a definition,
An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed
to upset or disrupt the conversation.
Originally posted by FMFSo retrospectively casting up details which could potentially make one appear hypocritical is
I am sure he remembers doing it. And I have no reason to think he regrets it at all.
your idea of making someone feel good about themselves. Interesting perspective that,
you don't think it could be upsetting? potentially embarrassing?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhether Grampy Bobby thinks of himself as hypocritical or not is something he could perhaps address in there among his insights when they appear. I don't think any facts I present will have much effect on what he thinks about it.
So retrospectively casting up details which could potentially make one appear hypocritical is
your idea of making someone feel good about themselves. Interesting perspective that,
you don't think it could be upsetting?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think any definition of "trolling" that would include people mentioning or questioning what others have said in public in debates and discussions is daft.
So retrospectively casting up details which could potentially make one appear hypocritical is
your idea of making someone feel good about themselves. Interesting perspective that,
you don't think it could be upsetting? potentially embarrassing?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFYes but that's not what you were asked, You were asked if you think they might be
Whether Grampy Bobby thinks of himself as hypocritical or not is something he could perhaps address in there among his insights when they appear. I don't think any facts I present will have much effect on what he thinks about it.
potentially embarrassing, not what GB thinks.