retrospective trolling

retrospective trolling

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It depends on what the context was. I certainly find your willingness to put the boot into
Grandpa Bobby over some alleged incident on a thread about the death of someone to
be retrospective trolling and morally repugnant. You can mention that if you like.
I was criticizing him for what he said on "about recomendations" just a few days ago. Ponderable said: "Mikelom's death is the course for a lot of postive posts and people are recommending those. A moving moment in the more cynical world of forums!" And Grampy Bobby replied: "Unfortunately, yes." Grampy Bobby was being criticized for that. Hypocrisy was what he was accused of. And this hypocrisy happened on 13th September this year. Just a week ago, in fact. How is it "morally repugnant"?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

robbie, is criticism always "morally repugnant" if you disagree with it?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is what it is FMF, if i have personal concerns I'll deal with them internally, thanks though
for the offer to discuss them publicly, it was very kind.
So are you suggesting that you are opposed to "discussion about personalities" or not?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by FMF
I was criticizing him for what he said on "about recomendations" just a few days ago. Ponderable said: "Mikelom's death is the course for a lot of postive posts and people are recommending those. A moving moment in the more cynical world of forums!" And Grampy Bobby replied: "Unfortunately, yes." Grampy Bobby was being criticized for that. Hypocrisy was what he ...[text shortened]... y happened on 13th September this year. Just a week ago, in fact. How is it "morally repugnant"?
because you were using some instance to simply make the most vile of accusations and to put the boot in. There is nothing in Grandpa Bobbys words that warranted your vile attack FMF that is why i find it morally repugnant.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15
1 edit

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because you were using some instance to simply make the most vile of accusations and to put the boot in. There is nothing in Grandpa Bobbys words that warranted your vile attack FMF that is why i find it morally repugnant.
Presumably you are not aware of the mileage Grampy Bobby tried to get out of Mike's death in some smack down posts aimed at another poster. Ponderable said: "Mikelom's death is the course for a lot of postive posts and people are recommending those. A moving moment in the more cynical world of forums!" Grampy Bobby, who was the ONLY RHP poster I can remember who made some cynical posts at the time news of Mike's death reached us, should probably have kept quiet if he didn't want to be told that some people found him to be hypocritical.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by FMF
Presumably you are not aware of the mileage Grampy Bobby tried to get out of Mike's death in some smack down posts aimed at another poster. Ponderable said: "Mikelom's death is the course for a lot of postive posts and people are recommending those. A moving moment in the more cynical world of forums!" Grampy Bobby, the only RHP poster I can remember who made s ...[text shortened]... ably have kept quiet if he didn't want to be told that some people found him to be hypocritical.
i doubt they can be any more odious than your willingness to use whatever he is alleged to have said to put the boot in.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i doubt they can be any more odious than your willingness to use whatever he is alleged to have said to put the boot in.
But surely you aren't now claiming to be opposed to "putting the boot in"?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
20 Sep 15
1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
But surely you aren't now claiming to be opposed to "putting the boot in"?
Yes i find it morally repugnant too, we should leave people with a way out not 'left in the lurch', as they say.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes i find it morally repugnant too, we should leave people with a way out not 'left in the lurch', as they say.
Grampy Bobby did have a way out: he could have apologized for his hypocrisy,

Have your own efforts at what you might call "putting the boot in" ever been "morally repugnant"?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by FMF
Grampy Bobby did have a way out: he could have apologized for his hypocrisy,

Have your own efforts at what you might call "putting the boot in" ever been "morally repugnant"?
and that justifies you putting the boot in FMF? If my own efforts have been morally repugnant then ill deal with it internally and again i thank you for the opportunity to discuss it publicly, its very kind.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and that justifies you putting the boot in FMF?
His hypocrisy was related to the death of a friend. So I criticized him. You should feel no obligation to criticize him too. And you are welcome to disapprove of my decision to do so.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If my own efforts have been morally repugnant then ill deal with it internally and again i thank you for the opportunity to discuss it publicly, its very kind.
So you are keen to discuss what you declare to be "morally repugnant" in others' behavior but unwilling to discuss what may or may not be "morally repugnant" in your own behavior. There's a word for that, you know, robbie.

ENGLAND

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
117708
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i have claimed no such thing.
Evasiveness by you usually indicates your sense of weakening position.

You are talking about forgetting past transgressions which scripturally is always linked to repentance and forgiveness, but you are not willing to apologise for your insults. So if they are insults, why won't you apologise, and if they are not insults then why worry if people "retrospectively" refer to them?

Cornovii

North of the Tamar

Joined
02 Feb 07
Moves
53689
20 Sep 15
1 edit

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you willing to contest that people don't change? If not then my text stands people do change and its immoral to hold them to account for something they said in the past because we all have the ability to change. that I cannot at this moment in time think of an example does not negate it.
Of course people change, if someone brings something up from the which the person has changed their mind on, all that have to do is say - 'Actually I've changed my mind on that, and here are the reasons why'. It's not hard.

Here's some unsolicited advice for you, if you are concerned about retrotrolling I would advise you to follow these steps on this websites forum.

1. Stop lying.
2. Stop making things up.
3. Develop the ability to apologise and admit your mistakes.
4. Refrain from goading, ridiculing, taunting and calling people names.

Cornovii

North of the Tamar

Joined
02 Feb 07
Moves
53689
20 Sep 15

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Name calling and taunting? You seem to have missed them.

What if goading and ridiculing are not done in the right spirit? What if retrotrollin is being done just for fun?
Robert you seem to have missed this -

Name calling and taunting? You seem to have missed them.

What if goading and ridiculing are not done in the right spirit? What if retrotrollin is being done just for fun?