NATION

PASSWORD

Trolling?

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.
Post a reply
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Trolling?

Postby Mavorpen » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:56 pm

I've noticed that Obamacult can't seem to reply to my posts without mentioning SkepticalScience, a website that I used MONTHS ago in a discussion about global warming. Now it's clear that he's simply trying to troll me by dismissing every single one of my posts as relating to something from several months ago. He's been doing this for a while.

viewtopic.php?p=13441031#p13441031
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=222880&p=12871923&hilit=skepticalscience#p12871923
viewtopic.php?p=12649247#p12649247
viewtopic.php?p=12530985#p12530985

It's not constructive at all, and it's just plain annoying at this point.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30673
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:56 am

Mavorpen wrote:I've noticed that Obamacult can't seem to reply to my posts without mentioning SkepticalScience, a website that I used MONTHS ago in a discussion about global warming.


A tricky one this.

You're not using SkepticalScience in the linked discussion. However, your sig does prominently feature a link to a global warming NSG thread where you do lean on that website. So while you may not be raising it now, it's not a wholly unreasonable inference that you find the site to be a valid source.

Let me run and look at something else quickly.... Back in a mo to complete this post and ruling....

Edit:
I think you're well within your rights to (as politely as possible) state firmly and clearly that regardless of the links in your sig, you're not using SkepticalScience in the current discussion, so his constant raising of that site in counterpoint to your points is irrelevant. If he then persists in bringing it up, we can reexamine this. However, I would note that both of you could perhaps do with taking a deep breath in that thread.
Last edited by The Archregimancy on Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:38 am

Thank you for giving this some thought Arch. I'm not contesting your conclusion, but I would like to note that Obamacult is not bringing up SkepticalScience because of my signature. He is doing it because I have used it in a debate against him before. He has actually done this in another case by bringing up something in a different discussion about climate change where I said something about C02. He's been taking random jabs at me in posts that don't even have anything to do with me.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30673
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:54 pm

Hmmm.

I think I may need to consult with some of the other mods over this one. Your second post raises some salient issues that I think are potentially worth reexamining. This may take a little while given timezone differences, so I hope you won't mind if I ask for patience while we sort this out.
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:07 pm

The Archregimancy wrote:Hmmm.

I think I may need to consult with some of the other mods over this one. Your second post raises some salient issues that I think are potentially worth reexamining. This may take a little while given timezone differences, so I hope you won't mind if I ask for patience while we sort this out.

It's fine. Thanks again.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30673
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:01 am

After further discussion: viewtopic.php?p=13459813#p13459813

I will note, though, Mavorpen, that you often don't help yourself. You do sometimes tend to go in with all guns blazing with a fairly confrontational debating style. This is hardly designed to calm discussion, and you don't need me to tell you that this has led you accruing a fair number of warnings yourself.

You may want to consider whether this is always helpful and constructive in situations like the present one.
Top
Post a reply

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trump Almighty

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Advertisement

Remove ads