Not allowed to reply to negative posts
May 1st 2003, 9:37 am
#16
Just Joined
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 18
Originally posted by Rudy
Personal attacks are the trademark of the TROLLS posts, and sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire.
Rosy, if you've made such a big mistake, come on home, the UK needs YOU!
Personal attacks are the trademark of the TROLLS posts, and sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire.
Rosy, if you've made such a big mistake, come on home, the UK needs YOU!
Yes i now we could go like all night, so sorry, but to my mind this is an example of what you were talking about. Anyway, in the scheme of things its really not that important, think I'll head off now....
May 1st 2003, 9:42 am
#17
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 1,927
Cmon everyone surely it is time we called a day. Too many people are involved now, we should remember what this forum is actually about.
If we don`t stop it now then it will get personal and i am sure nobody wants that.
footie chick
If we don`t stop it now then it will get personal and i am sure nobody wants that.
footie chick
May 1st 2003, 4:02 pm
#18
Release the hounds!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 302
Originally posted by Stoney
Like I said its usually people with nothing interesting to say.
Like I said its usually people with nothing interesting to say.
well the wife would probably agree with you about me having nothing interesting to say, and probably over my 120 odd posts I don't know how informative I've been, but I sure know that I wouldn't let a bully like you stop me posting here....
May 1st 2003, 4:04 pm
#19
Release the hounds!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 302
Originally posted by Stoney
Thanks Footie Chick,
It seems PB and Co. have a few Lap Dogs on here who are quite happy reading them ripping peoples posts apart without a murmer, but as soon as someone has a go back at them the YAPPING starts.
Thanks Footie Chick,
It seems PB and Co. have a few Lap Dogs on here who are quite happy reading them ripping peoples posts apart without a murmer, but as soon as someone has a go back at them the YAPPING starts.
Hey Pb, after posting here earlier on today, and being labelled as one of your Lap dogs, I wonder if you can help me....is this a step up the social ladder, or a big step down?
May 1st 2003, 4:15 pm
#20
Karma Comedian
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,506
Originally posted by AndrewR
Hey Pb, after posting here earlier on today, and being labelled as one of your Lap dogs, I wonder if you can help me....is this a step up the social ladder, or a big step down?
Hey Pb, after posting here earlier on today, and being labelled as one of your Lap dogs, I wonder if you can help me....is this a step up the social ladder, or a big step down?
Andrew
I reckon it would be much better than being a lap dog of Stoney anyway.
May 1st 2003, 4:22 pm
#21
Release the hounds!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 302
Originally posted by jayr
Andrew
I reckon it would be much better than being a lap dog of Stoney anyway.
Andrew
I reckon it would be much better than being a lap dog of Stoney anyway.
Reckon you're right!
May 1st 2003, 4:25 pm
#22
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Originally posted by AndrewR
Hey Pb, after posting here earlier on today, and being labelled as one of your Lap dogs, I wonder if you can help me....is this a step up the social ladder, or a big step down?
Hey Pb, after posting here earlier on today, and being labelled as one of your Lap dogs, I wonder if you can help me....is this a step up the social ladder, or a big step down?
The term wet nursed just about covers it , must be the reason Australia is limiting the amount of refugees it takes from the UK.
I have no ladder but can be social if that helps , these poor deluded people have one but have never climbed higher than the bottom rung.
The word TROLL keeps popping up , seeing as you sad lot only read fairy tales I can see why , settle down Mummy will make it better.
Last edited by pommie bastard; May 1st 2003 at 4:28 pm.
May 1st 2003, 4:25 pm
#23
Karma Comedian
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,506
Re: Not allowed to reply to negative posts
Originally posted by Stoney
It looks like one can't reply TO negative posts WITH negative posts.
It seems as long as your negative post is aimed at OZ then thats OK.
But when you try and BALANCE the argument you get shot at from the wings by TROLL protectors calling you LOUD MOUTH
These are the people BLEATING on about needing negative posts to balance arguments
but THEY want to choose the people who post negatively
apparently the OPINION police are now in force.
So NO negative posts unless you are a TROLL
It looks like one can't reply TO negative posts WITH negative posts.
It seems as long as your negative post is aimed at OZ then thats OK.
But when you try and BALANCE the argument you get shot at from the wings by TROLL protectors calling you LOUD MOUTH
These are the people BLEATING on about needing negative posts to balance arguments
but THEY want to choose the people who post negatively
apparently the OPINION police are now in force.
So NO negative posts unless you are a TROLL
I couldn't help but find some definitions of trolls, since there seems to be something of an opinion on this forum that it's someone who lives in Australia and attempts to inject some hometruths. Anyway, these definitions I liked:
Anti-Troll (AKA Troll Hunter) - A special type of Ranger (read: Ranger
kit) that has Trolls as their species enemy and will fixate on flaming
a specific Troll and being rude to all other Trolls sometimes
aleinating friends and allies in his quest to rid the world of Trolls
or die trying.
Cowardly Troll - I have encounterd him in my journeys among Usenet.
This type of troll is quite obvious, but when a poster calls him a
troll and points it out to him, this troll vehemently denies trolling
and insists that he's enlightening the masses.
Here's the link for some more:
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...m/55/troll.htm
May 1st 2003, 4:27 pm
#24
Release the hounds!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 302
Originally posted by pommie bastard
I have no ladder but can be social if that helps ,
I have no ladder but can be social if that helps ,
Hey Pb, if by some chance I get to Perth from Vancouver in the next few months I'll stand you one in the bar
May 1st 2003, 4:29 pm
#25
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Originally posted by AndrewR
Hey Pb, if by some chance I get to Perth from Vancouver in the next few months I'll stand you one in the bar
Hey Pb, if by some chance I get to Perth from Vancouver in the next few months I'll stand you one in the bar
May 1st 2003, 4:30 pm
#26
Release the hounds!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 302
Originally posted by pommie bastard
Only if you let me buy you one , always stand me round .
Only if you let me buy you one , always stand me round .
Nice one!
May 1st 2003, 4:38 pm
#27
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 147
Re: Not allowed to reply to negative posts
Originally posted by jayr
I couldn't help but find some definitions of trolls, since there seems to be something of an opinion on this forum that it's someone who lives in Australia and attempts to inject some hometruths. Anyway, these definitions I liked:
Anti-Troll (AKA Troll Hunter) - A special type of Ranger (read: Ranger
kit) that has Trolls as their species enemy and will fixate on flaming
a specific Troll and being rude to all other Trolls sometimes
aleinating friends and allies in his quest to rid the world of Trolls
or die trying.
Cowardly Troll - I have encounterd him in my journeys among Usenet.
This type of troll is quite obvious, but when a poster calls him a
troll and points it out to him, this troll vehemently denies trolling
and insists that he's enlightening the masses.
Here's the link for some more:
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...m/55/troll.htm
I couldn't help but find some definitions of trolls, since there seems to be something of an opinion on this forum that it's someone who lives in Australia and attempts to inject some hometruths. Anyway, these definitions I liked:
Anti-Troll (AKA Troll Hunter) - A special type of Ranger (read: Ranger
kit) that has Trolls as their species enemy and will fixate on flaming
a specific Troll and being rude to all other Trolls sometimes
aleinating friends and allies in his quest to rid the world of Trolls
or die trying.
Cowardly Troll - I have encounterd him in my journeys among Usenet.
This type of troll is quite obvious, but when a poster calls him a
troll and points it out to him, this troll vehemently denies trolling
and insists that he's enlightening the masses.
Here's the link for some more:
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...m/55/troll.htm
hmmm....I think the second one, but I better go look and check if he's not another type of troll!
May 1st 2003, 4:42 pm
#28
Karma Comedian
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,506
Re: Not allowed to reply to negative posts
Originally posted by BCBOY
hmmm....I think the second one, but I better go look and check if he's not another type of troll!
hmmm....I think the second one, but I better go look and check if he's not another type of troll!
Hey BCBOY maybe we could start a poll on what type of troll Stoney is, I'd go for the cowardly one too...
May 1st 2003, 4:45 pm
#29
Y Ddraig Goch
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Body is in Brissie. Heart and soul has long flown home.
Posts: 3,722
Re: Not allowed to reply to negative posts
Originally posted by Stoney
It looks like one can't reply TO negative posts WITH negative posts.
It seems as long as your negative post is aimed at OZ then thats OK.
But when you try and BALANCE the argument you get shot at from the wings by TROLL protectors calling you LOUD MOUTH
These are the people BLEATING on about needing negative posts to balance arguments
but THEY want to choose the people who post negatively
apparently the OPINION police are now in force.
So NO negative posts unless you are a TROLL
It looks like one can't reply TO negative posts WITH negative posts.
It seems as long as your negative post is aimed at OZ then thats OK.
But when you try and BALANCE the argument you get shot at from the wings by TROLL protectors calling you LOUD MOUTH
These are the people BLEATING on about needing negative posts to balance arguments
but THEY want to choose the people who post negatively
apparently the OPINION police are now in force.
So NO negative posts unless you are a TROLL
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but I find a lot of your posts abusive to individual members , and ranting about things which are simply not true - what did you say last time.. there was more skin cancer in the UK - I noticed you did not reply back in this thread when faced with the facts that Aus is number one for this.
And "Dear" - you are the one who comes on this thread and call people who you do not agree with "Trolls" like in your above post - grow up!
I see only one person ranting here, and it's you.
cheers
May 1st 2003, 4:49 pm
#30
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 147
Re: Not allowed to reply to negative posts
Originally posted by Ceri
Stoney, It's like the pot calling the kettle black sorry - you seem to attack a few people on here and are always running down the UK, and praising up Australia. you are very naive. Both countries have problems!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but I find a lot of your posts abusive to individual members , and ranting about things which are simply not true - what did you say last time.. there was more skin cancer in the UK - I noticed you did not reply back in this thread when faced with the facts that Aus is number one for this.
And "Dear" - you are the one who comes on this thread and call people who you do not agree with "Trolls" like in your above post - grow up!
I see only one person ranting here, and it's you.
cheers
Stoney, It's like the pot calling the kettle black sorry - you seem to attack a few people on here and are always running down the UK, and praising up Australia. you are very naive. Both countries have problems!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but I find a lot of your posts abusive to individual members , and ranting about things which are simply not true - what did you say last time.. there was more skin cancer in the UK - I noticed you did not reply back in this thread when faced with the facts that Aus is number one for this.
And "Dear" - you are the one who comes on this thread and call people who you do not agree with "Trolls" like in your above post - grow up!
I see only one person ranting here, and it's you.
cheers
