10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEmbarrassment or lack of embarrassment is entirely in Grampy Bobby's mind so you should ask him if what I said was embarrassing. I have simply addressed him about things he has said in this public arena. If he has altered his stance, he can say so. I don't see any "trolling" angle.
Yes but that's not what you were asked, You were asked if you think they might be
potentially embarrassing, not what GB thinks.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFBut that's not the definition of trolling that has been given and in fact its rather clear,
I think any definition of "trolling" that would include people mentioning or questioning what others have said in public in debates and discussions is daft.
intentionally upsetting or disrupting the conversation was the definition that was given not
mentioning or questioning people.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFI am not interested in whether GB found it embarrassing i am asking you now for the second time whether you think retrospectively posting details which could make someone appear hypocritical or embarrassed is your idea of making someone feel good about themselves or that it would have the opposite effect of making someone upset?
Embarrassment or lack of embarrassment is entirely in Grampy Bobby's mind so you should ask him if what I said was embarrassing. I have simply addressed him about things he has said in this public arena. If he has altered his stance, he can say so. I don't see any "trolling" angle.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI clearly do not agree with your catch-all definition of "trolling" ~ which I think is ludicrous ~ and people getting "upset" with people disagreeing with them or having different beliefs or being persistent in the face of deflections - on a debate and discussion message board!!! - is another ludicrous, meaning-eradicating definition that I do not subscribe to, as I think I have made pretty clear by my contributions to this thread so far.
But that's not the definition of trolling that has been given and in fact its rather clear,
intentionally upsetting or disrupting the conversation was the definition that was given not
mentioning or questioning people.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFok how would you define an internet troll then
I clearly do not agree with your catch-all definition of "trolling" ~ which I think is ludicrous ~ and people getting "upset" with people disagreeing with them or having different beliefs or being persistent in the face of deflections - on a debate and discussion message board!!! - is another ludicrous, meaning-eradicating definition that I do not subscribe to, as I think I have made pretty clear by my contributions to this thread so far.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf Grampy Bobby feels he has been hypocritical and this upsets him, then that is a matter for him. Responding to what people say and how they behave is normality on a debate forum. If he doesn't think he's hypocritical, then there is no harm does if others think he is. If he feels he has been hypocritical and he mends his ways, it's a win win surely.
I am not interested in whether GB found it embarrassing i am asking you now for the second time whether you think retrospectively posting details which could make someone appear hypocritical or embarrassed is your idea of making someone feel good about themselves or that it would have the opposite effect of making someone upset?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've already mentioned it more than once. Stuff from the "horrible" and "sinister" end of your catch-all spectrum. Like I said, when I start advocating the slaughter of the Jews, or telling people they are "Satan" or "satanic" whilst insisting that I'm not trying to be funny, or mocking them about dead relatives, or if I start insinuating that Grampy Bobby is a pedophile, then you can PM me and call me a "troll" with justification.
ok how would you define an internet troll then
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFso essentially you dont care whether he found it upsetting or not and you never considered
If Grampy Bobby feels he has been hypocritical and this upsets him, then that is a matter for him. Responding to what people say and how they behave is normality on a debate forum. If he doesn't think he's hypocritical, what harm does it do if others think he is. If he feels he has been hypocritical and he mends his ways, it's a win win surely.
the possibility that it may be. Interesting do see yourself as some kind of redeemer to help
people bring their personalities more into alignment with your ideal?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I have said already, I find your definition of "trolling" to be nonsense.
so essentially you dont care whether he found it upsetting or not and you never considered
the possibility that it may be. Interesting do see yourself as some kind of redeemer to help
people bring their personalities more into alignment with your ideal?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFso anything that's is potentially upsetting as per the definition that was provided but not retrospectively casting up embarrassing details which could potentially cause upset by making one appear hypocritical, thats ok. I understand, thank you. No more questions.
I've already mentioned it more than once. Stuff from the "horrible" and "sinister" end of your catch-all spectrum. Like I said, when I start advocating the slaughter of the Jews, or telling people they are "Satan" or "satanic" whilst insisting that I'm not trying to be funny, or mocking them about dead relatives, or if I start insinuating that Grampy Bobby is a pedophile, then you can PM me and call me a "troll" with justification.
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRedeemer? You're not going to go off on some kind of catchphrase routine again? Where did you get the "redeemer" thing from? Which of my posts?
Interesting do see yourself as some kind of redeemer to help
people bring their personalities more into alignment with your ideal?
10 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour definition of "trolling" is meaningless, or rather useless. I don't believe for one moment even you believe it. 😉
so anything that's is potentially upsetting as per the definition that was provided but not retrospectively casting up embarrassing details which could potentially cause upset by making one appear hypocritical, thats ok. I understand, thank you. No more questions.
Originally posted by FMFYes you are a scourge of windbags. It says so under your avatar. Surely you are scourging
Redeemer? You're not going to go off on some kind of catchphrase routine again? Where did you get the "redeemer" thing from? Which of my posts?
them to bring them to their senses and make amends for their misdemeanours. I just
wonder if you saw yourself as a redemptive figure, helping them to see the error of their
ways by scourging them.
robbie, your defensive concept of "retrospective trolling" is jargon for not taking responsibility for your own behaviour and things you have said in the past. I unequivocally stand by everything I have said on this web site since 2007. If anything I've said is no longer my view I will just come out and say so and/or apologize for the contradiction.