Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 10:44 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 10:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I don't like the little ones.

Well, beggars can't be choosers can they, you fuck-brained twat?

Oh, look, what a cute little chihuahua. Hobo

[Image: 0.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 10:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 10:36 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  No.

:cupofIdon'tgiveafuckyoucansuckmyballs:

I don't like the little ones.

You're right, I was lowering myself to your level there. I do apologize.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
07-07-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 10:52 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 10:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I don't like the little ones.

You're right, I was lowering myself to your level there. I do apologize.

You call that a retort? Hobo

Facepalm

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 11:08 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Now you are talking about two different issues. I addressed your "there also seems to be references to a rather large proportion of theists being accused of being trolls", which is a common strawman that crybabies try to pin on me.

Oh I wasn't directing that at you specifically, just the forum population in general. My overall point was that most people accused of being trolls on here, aren't. If people can't even remotely agree on who is a troll and who isn't the concept of banning trolls becomes rather difficult.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Origin. "Trolling for flames". Case in point, the OP here.

In that case, no, I am not familiar with the origin of the term.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  So you admit you don't see because you're not looking.

Absolutely. I don't make any attempt to read everything posted on here, I purely read what I feel like reading, just like any other member. As far as being a Super-Mod goes I'm fully reliant on having potential issues brought to my attention as opposed to going looking for them.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  And I'm not at all sure, as staff folks here have gone on record saying that they like having trolls here.

Well that's something you'll have to take my word for. The Admins always want to hear about potential rules breaks, however they'll only act if they agree that a rule has been broken. As for FT members saying they like having trolls here, I can't comment on that one as it wasn't me who said it.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Above what?

I meant my above statement in that post.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That's not what I'm saying.

May I ask what you are defining a troll as then?

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  If someone is mugging you and you call a cop, and the cop tells you they like having muggers here, it's about time to start working things out for yourself.

Except you said yourself that when you attack these 'trolls' they stop responding. That's what makes me think they may not be trolls. I was under the impression that trolls were people who tried to provoke attacks to cause disruptions, if they shy away from attacks then my personal assumption would be that they probably aren't trolling.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hughsie's post
07-07-2014, 11:09 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 10:56 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 10:52 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You're right, I was lowering myself to your level there. I do apologize.

You call that a retort? Hobo

Facepalm

No, I call that a response. I'm not going to get into a stupid name calling fight with you. I said my peace, and I do apologize for making a juvenile jab. Honestly.

I'm better than that and I'll try my best to keep it that way. The point of me even bothering to engage you is to try to get you to do the same, for the sake of the sanity of the forum while you're around.

This forum has existed just fine with all manner of theist trolls without resorting to the kind of inanity that you bring for a long time now. You're angle doesn't do anything for anyone, so it would be good for everyone if you would just realize it and either tone it the fuck down, or go away and spend your time on reddit or, is it 4chan? I don't know, I don't waste my time there but I've seen it talked about. Sounds like your kind of place.

If you have a problem with the way this forum is managed, you can either file a formal complaint or seek a different audience. You have had problems here since the moment you came, and it's obviously not because of how the forum has been set up or managed as it's a problem that seems to be isolated to you.

Deal with it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
07-07-2014, 11:36 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2014 11:49 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 11:08 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Now you are talking about two different issues. I addressed your "there also seems to be references to a rather large proportion of theists being accused of being trolls", which is a common strawman that crybabies try to pin on me.

Oh I wasn't directing that at you specifically, just the forum population in general. My overall point was that most people accused of being trolls on here, aren't. If people can't even remotely agree on who is a troll and who isn't the concept of banning trolls becomes rather difficult.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Origin. "Trolling for flames". Case in point, the OP here.

In that case, no, I am not familiar with the origin of the term.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  So you admit you don't see because you're not looking.

Absolutely. I don't make any attempt to read everything posted on here, I purely read what I feel like reading, just like any other member. As far as being a Super-Mod goes I'm fully reliant on having potential issues brought to my attention as opposed to going looking for them.

(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  And I'm not at all sure, as staff folks here have gone on record saying that they like having trolls here.

Well that's something you'll have to take my word for. The Admins always want to hear about potential rules breaks, however they'll only act if they agree that a rule has been broken. As for FT members saying they like having trolls here, I can't comment on that one as it wasn't me who said it.

And I didn't expect you to, because it wasn't you.


Quote:
(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Above what?

I meant my above statement in that post.

Like I say. It's nice to hear that from you, but in practice things are a little different.


Quote:
(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That's not what I'm saying.

May I ask what you are defining a troll as then?


For the purposes of my discussion with you here, it's probably best to look to Teh Rulez and the specific proscription against "com[ing] here with the sole intent of causing chaos and conflict". That's what's actually relevant here, would you not agree?

Quote:
(07-07-2014 10:46 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  If someone is mugging you and you call a cop, and the cop tells you they like having muggers here, it's about time to start working things out for yourself.

Except you said yourself that when you attack these 'trolls' they stop responding. That's what makes me think they may not be trolls.

But that's simply one of many tactics in their bag of tricks. A user calls their bluff, or destroys their PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times), or whatever, and they simply ignore it and keep on with their "argument" or harangue or line of shit as if no one had said anything -- that's just for one example.


Quote: I was under the impression that trolls were people who tried to provoke attacks to cause disruptions,

Not necessarily just to "provoke attacks". That is of course the origin of the term -- and I pointed it out simply to expose the OP of this thread for precisely what it was -- but can you not see that the point is to disrupt? I've even seen atheist members here talking about going to xtian forums to troll, to disrupt, to have a go at theists. They think it's funny, but I don't. On a rare occasion I might follow a troll from here to his "home turf" to bring a fight to him -- that's only happened twice -- but I don't go cruising theist forums to start a bunch of shit with them (which might be the best definition of a "troll" for the purposes of this discussion).

Quote: if they shy away from attacks then my personal assumption would be that they probably aren't trolling.

Only if you use a very narrow definition. They know they can't beat a bull elephant, so they avoid the bulls and try to pick the calves off.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 11:42 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2014 11:46 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
(07-07-2014 11:09 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 10:56 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You call that a retort? Hobo

Facepalm

No, I call that a response. I'm not going to get into a stupid name calling fight with you.

You already did.


Quote: I said my peace,

*piece


Quote: and I do apologize for making a juvenile jab. Honestly.

No, you don't, and the sad attempts at jabs you make in the rest of your drivel bear that out. Take your (not "you're") faux-apology and shove it up your ass.


The adults are talking now.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 11:44 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
Taq I think you need to meditate for a little bit.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
07-07-2014, 11:47 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
Just curious, what are we hoping to get out of the conversation on this thread?
is anything actually going to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hobbitgirl's post
07-07-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Are ad hominem queens the new drama queens?
Hughsie, how does the FT identify "Anyone who comes here with the sole intent of causing chaos and conflict "
is there any specific criteria that one must meet to be seen as "Anyone who comes here with the sole intent of causing chaos and conflict"?
What if one's intentions are to share his/her worldview AND to cause chaos and conflict?
Wich means you can't ban him, because causing conflict and chaos must be his SOLE intent.
Or what about someone whose main intention is to share the worldview, and the disuption is just a bonus?

The first example can still be banned because you also said "being intentionally overly disruptive is also not acceptable"

from what point is one "overly disruptive"?

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: