Don't Feed the GDed Trolls

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by packrat44 Twaddle, you really know how to beat a dead horse. When you get done with it even the rendering company won't want it. Sounds like an immature child. "If you won't play the game my way I'm going to take my ball and go home".

Glad someone else put words to what I was t hinking. Whoops! Now I guess I am part of a mob. Where's my pitchfork?

[twaddle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by packrat44 Sounds like an immature child.

PUTZ!!!!

[unclemick]

Pssssst! - DeCaf.

Worth the price.

heh heh heh - pick a brand any brand - just do it! Do it now!!

You think I'm cranky now - doing estimated taxes this weekend - in time for Monday - State and Federal. Troll is a nit - to the barracades with the bare breasted French broad!

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclemick Pssssst! - DeCaf. Worth the price. heh heh heh - pick a brand any brand - just do it! Do it now!! You think I'm cranky now - doing estimated taxes this weekend - in time for Monday - State and Federal. Troll is a nit - to the barracades with the bare breasted French broad!

Not a bad idea; everyone, take a deep toke breath , and count to ten...

Hey Mick, she got a sister?

[CuppaJoe]

I’d like to clarify what I see at the issues on this thread (and three concurrent threads on the same issue). I don’t mind seeing people banned but I don’t appreciate being told whom I may associate with. If my story about the head of personnel was unclear, this is the point of it: People in large organizations who refuse to blacklist others are destroyed as surely as those whose names appear on the blacklist. As long as a poster is not banned, I feel that he or she is fair game for comments and/or as in my case, attempts at hijacking the thread. IMO, posters who start a thread and then never join in the comments, are fair game for banning.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe IMO, posters who start a thread and then never join in the comments, are fair game for banning.

Which means...??

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe IMO, posters who start a thread and then never join in the comments, are fair game for banning.

Hmm. I thought it was called listening.

But it depends on the content of that first post, I guess.

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa Hmm. I thought it was called listening. But it depends on the content of that first post, I guess.

Guess that's why I hide behind the "IMO."

[CuppaJoe]

Sorry, Brewer, I meant the poster you called a "troll."

[twaddle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe Sorry, Brewer, I meant the poster you called a "troll."

So, you're basically saying that there really are trolls -- people whose intent is only to disrupt a forum. I agree, but I find they are extremely rare. We certainly don't encounter them here on a frequent basis.

My problem is with the extension of "troll" to anybody who doesn't agree with you (check the length of some of those ignore lists). And the way they are confronted.

BTW, what do you think of my new "internet putz" -- somebody who engages in ad hominem attacks? I hope it catches on.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by twaddle BTW, what do you think of my new "internet putz" -- somebody who engages in ad hominem attacks? I hope it catches on.

I'd recommend they be called "twaddlers". In your honor, of course.

[packrat44]

Quote:

Originally Posted by twaddle BTW, what do you think of my new "internet putz" -- somebody who engages in ad hominem attacks? I hope it catches on.

Translation - anyone who does not agree totally with everything twaddles says.

[twaddle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by packrat44 Translation - anyone who does not agree totally with everything twaddles says.

Fine sir, I enjoy it when people disagree with what I say. That's the only way I can learn.

Your complaint was with the way I *sound*. Sorry, but that's your perceptual problem.

FWIW, the "can I take my content with me" wasn't so much a crybaby thing as a real question. We contribute our content freely to this site so that AndyR can make some moolah. Does it seem fair to let him continue making moolah from you if you no longer need his services?

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by twaddle FWIW, the "can I take my content with me" wasn't so much a crybaby thing as a real question. We contribute our content freely to this site so that AndyR can make some moolah. Does it seem fair to let him continue making moolah from you if you no longer need his services?

The reason you contribute is so AndyR can make money? That's a new one. I contribute out of interest, entertainment and education. I could just lurk and read, but I believe if I can give reasonable answers to others' questions, they will be more likely return the favor to me, and we'll all get something out of it.

Perhaps AndyR set up this site to make money, or perhaps he set it up for his own interests, and found advertisers so he could covers his costs and maybe compensate for his time. I have no idea how big of a moolah maker this is for him. If he can make money off my posts that I've freely contributed of my own accord, good for him, and it sounds perfectly fair to me that any of my old posts, which certainly have diminishing value with time, if they ever had any. And the ads do not get in my way, so I appreciate the free service.

I see nothing in the registration section that gives him the rights to your posts, so if you want to leave and delete them, that's your right. If you really think it's worth your while. I'm not sure the site would suffer too much without them. I don't think you have any right to demand he delete them for you, though I suspect it's not that hard for him or a moderator to do if they wanted to accomodate you.

I think I understand your overall point (who couldn't with how many times you've repeated it), and agree somewhat, except I like how these forums are more spam and attack free than most sites I've seen. So I don't mind the early detection of posters who have been banned before, and it seems that much of it has been on target. I haven't been here that long to know all the issues, but I don't see a problem with how this site is run and moderated.

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by twaddle So, you're basically saying that there really are trolls -- people whose intent is only to disrupt a forum. I agree, but I find they are extremely rare. We certainly don't encounter them here on a frequent basis. My problem is with the extension of "troll" to anybody who doesn't agree with you (check the length of some of those ignore lists). And the way they are confronted. BTW, what do you think of my new "internet putz" -- somebody who engages in ad hominem attacks? I hope it catches on.

Not sure we’re on the same page, but I will say that regarding those two suspected trolls, I could not read their styles, my eyes instinctively lifted off the page.

Yeah, the public confrontation is a problem. If I wanted to stop someone I think is troll (hasn't happened yet); I think I would bring it to the attention of admin and then accept their decision.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe Sorry, Brewer, I meant the poster you called a "troll."

'Sokay, I just had no idea what you meant.

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 'Sokay, I just had no idea what you meant.

Happens all the time.

[twaddle]

I am honored.

[pfpelican]

so...if you died, would your content then be part of your estate?

[Sarah in SC]

FWIW,
I think that my not having to pay some kind of subscription here makes it okay for AndyR to generate some ad revenue from the forum. But then again, I don't think that I say anything valuable enough that someone would pay me for it, anyway!
It would be flattering to think that my content is worth something! But I seriously doubt it, and I'm pretty glad that AndyR and Dory before him created this awesome place for me to visit. It is a good thing that it (hopefully) pays for itself.