20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLegendary troll is better than mythical troll. At least a legend has a basis in reality.
not just an ordinary troll FMF, a legendary one! But I can discern that it has annoyed you although I know you could never admit it lest it reveal some chink in our armour albeit a rather superficial one and I dont want you to feel bad, really I dont, so I will stop.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobie[Bump]
Do you ask people awkward questions face to face or is it within the relative safety behind a PC on the internet that you feel emboldened or that usual social etiquette does not really apply?
Yes of course I ask people what they might feel are awkward questions "face to face" when in a discussion or a debate. There is no "safety" issue. And there is no "etiquette" issue because I don't dish out personal abuse "face to face", just as I don't dish it out here.
So there's my answer. What about you? Do you call people "slimy" to their face, suggest that they are mentally ill, or ask them if they were sexually abused as a child if they say something you disagree with when you discuss things "face to face"?
20 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFactually i think that i termed your posts slimey unless of course you have been living in
[Bump]
Yes of course I ask people what they might feel are awkward questions "face to face" when in a discussion or a debate. There is no "safety" issue. And there is no "etiquette" issue because I don't dish out personal abuse "face to face", just as I don't dish it out here.
So there's my answer. What about you? Do you call people "slimy" to their face, ...[text shortened]... d if they say something you disagree with when you discuss things "face to face"?
a swamp, which of course is where trolls live and which may make you slimey as well
at least according to Shrek, another legendary troll. As far as i can discern i did not
state that you were sexually abused, i asked if you had suffered abuse as a child,
unspecfied, and unless i am mistaken, it was you who introduced the element of
sexuality, for I am aware that abuse takes many forms. So your cvility lasted a mere
one thread, oh well, back to feeding the troll.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you refer to people's views as "slimy" when you are "face to face" with them?
actually i think that i termed your posts slimey unless of course you have been living in a swamp, which of course is where trolls live and which may make you slimey as well at least according to Shrek, another legendary troll.
20 Apr 13
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFI may term it worse than slimey depending upon what was said. Of course its a
Do you refer to people's views as "slimy" when you are "face to face" with them?
reference to your skulduggery, as above, stating that i termed you slimey when in fact i
termed your posts slimey and stating that i said you were sexually abused when in
fact i asked if you had suffered abuse as a child, unspecified, you see how slimey your
posts can be.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "element of sexuality" do you claim I have introduced into any of our discussions?
As far as i can discern i did not
state that you were sexually abused, i asked if you had suffered abuse as a child, unspecfied, and unless i am mistaken, it was you who introduced the element of sexuality, for I am aware that abuse takes many forms. So your cvility lasted a mere one thread, oh well, back to feeding the troll.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFso your legedary trollship, that would be adding the appelation sexual to abuse. If I
What "element of sexuality" do you claim I have introduced into any of our discussions?
asked if you were sexually abused then so be it, but i think i simply asked if you were
abused, but then again, not being anything other than a mere mortal as opposed to a
legendary troll, i make mistakes. As you answered in the negative that you were not
abused i still dont know why you are harping on about it, but wait, I do, you are a
lgedary troll, its what you do, you take emotive issues and flame internet forumns with
them! for your jollies!
20 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have met a few persons who were clearly mentally ill, and i would be pleased if you
Do you suggest that people are mentally ill if they are critical of your organisation when you discuss things "face to face"?
would cite the Biblical reference where Paul states that persons who are ill disposed
towards Christians are mentally ill. If its not a Biblical reference or you have no
reference then why are you making it up, is this more evidence of sliminess on your
part, taking a statement and twisting it like you have done these others? Oh dear, dirty
washing on the clothes line cannot be good for your legendary status, can it?
20 Apr 13
3 edits
here that people . . . . . .listen carefully, that is the Legendary troll, trolling through the
threads of yesteryear trying to find some evidence to use against me, LOL, hes nothing
if not predictable. Its termed the retroactive trolling, check it out,
The Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every cragislist post you ever made
until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago.
After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive Stalker will link to the old
post(s) in an effort to discredit you.
http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "skullduggery"?
I may term it worse than slimey depending upon what was said. Of course its a reference to your skulduggery, as above, stating that i termed you slimey when in fact i termed your posts slimey...
Thread 148246 especially pages 36, 37, 38 and 39
FMF: Do you think the judge and jury in this case were also "slimy"?
robbie carrobie: no but i think you are slimy, you produce more slime than a pond full of frogs in mating season.
FMF: Do you think Jonathan Kendrick was "slimy"?
robbie carrobie: i certainly think you are slimy.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe question is, surely there's more than a mere whiff of hypocrisy in you questioning my "etiquette" and what I am "emboldened" to say when it's not "face to face" when it is you and not me who relies so heavily on personal abuse on these forums?
here that people . . . . . .listen carefully, that is the Legendary troll, trolling through the
threads of yesteryear trying to find some evidence to use against me, LOL, hes nothing
if not predictable.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAccording to your profile many of us here are dogs or pigs whom you should not cast your pearls before, it does beg the question, why have you come back here from your little break ?
here that people . . . . . .listen carefully, that is the Legendary troll, trolling through the
threads of yesteryear trying to find some evidence to use against me, LOL, hes nothing
if not predictable.
20 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every cragislist post you ever made
What "skullduggery"?
Thread 148246 especially pages 36, 37, 38 and 39
FMF: Do you think the judge and jury in this case were also "slimy"?
robbie carrobie: no but i think you are slimy, you produce more slime than a pond full of frogs in mating season.
FMF: Do you think Jonathan Kendrick was "slimy"?
robbie carrobie: i certainly think you are slimy.
until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago.
After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive Stalker will link to the old
post(s) in an effort to discredit you.
http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls
so i make mistakes and i said you were slimy, but thanks for illustrating the above, i could not have done it without you.