@Oakman [modified]
-
Why, has he done anythig to warrant such abuse?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
You call that abuse? Soft lad. This is the firswt time this poster has come to my attention and I have to say ' I decided that it's not a good idea to be a member of a private forum controlled by someone who not quite OK in the head.' was very profound.
-
You call that abuse? Soft lad. This is the firswt time this poster has come to my attention and I have to say ' I decided that it's not a good idea to be a member of a private forum controlled by someone who not quite OK in the head.' was very profound.
Being called an idiot is abusive. As for his comments they are reasonable IMO and thus not idiotic. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Being called an idiot is abusive. As for his comments they are reasonable IMO and thus not idiotic. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
In a forum such as "The Back Room", various levels of abuse (idiotic or not), are to be expected. It is the nature of "The Back Room". It is, IMO, rather bad form to make such observations against any article by any author. If the criticism of an article itself is constructive then a learning exercise becomes possible that benefits the author and the readers alike. For ANY member to make abusive observations against an article just because the member has some personalized issue(s) with the author is not really playing with a "straight bat".
-
In a forum such as "The Back Room", various levels of abuse (idiotic or not), are to be expected. It is the nature of "The Back Room". It is, IMO, rather bad form to make such observations against any article by any author. If the criticism of an article itself is constructive then a learning exercise becomes possible that benefits the author and the readers alike. For ANY member to make abusive observations against an article just because the member has some personalized issue(s) with the author is not really playing with a "straight bat".
I just wondered if it was the usual 'picking on the new guy' syndrome thats so prevalent on CP.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I just wondered if it was the usual 'picking on the new guy' syndrome thats so prevalent on CP.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
No. Hadn't realised he was a new guy, my immaturity meant I couldn't resist the chance of the slightly witty response to trollslayers 'you do a good impression of an idiot'. I would have made the comment regardless of who the subject was or the length of time they had been here.
-
No. Hadn't realised he was a new guy, my immaturity meant I couldn't resist the chance of the slightly witty response to trollslayers 'you do a good impression of an idiot'. I would have made the comment regardless of who the subject was or the length of time they had been here.
-
PompeyBoy3 wrote:
No. Hadn't realised he was a new guy
Nope. The chappie has been a CP member for 8.5 years.
-
PompeyBoy3 wrote:
No. Hadn't realised he was a new guy
Nope. The chappie has been a CP member for 8.5 years.
Not vey visible though.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Yes, indeed. Why would I defend my country when it consists of people like you.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, indeed. Why would I defend my country when it consists of people like you.
Just can't let it go can you? ;P
-- ** You don't hire a handyman to build a house, you hire a carpenter. ** Jack of all trades and master of none.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, indeed. Why would I defend my country when it consists of people like you.
Just can't let it go can you? ;P
-- ** You don't hire a handyman to build a house, you hire a carpenter. ** Jack of all trades and master of none.
Never! ;)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
On this occasion, yes. :) Hadnt seen him around the usual places so assumed he was new.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
In a forum such as "The Back Room", various levels of abuse (idiotic or not), are to be expected. It is the nature of "The Back Room". It is, IMO, rather bad form to make such observations against any article by any author. If the criticism of an article itself is constructive then a learning exercise becomes possible that benefits the author and the readers alike. For ANY member to make abusive observations against an article just because the member has some personalized issue(s) with the author is not really playing with a "straight bat".
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
For ANY member to make abusive observations against an article just because the member has some personalized issue(s) with the author is not really playing with a "straight bat".
I did not make any abusive observations about his article. I saw him complaining about a 1 someone gave to his article. Out of curiosity I clicked on the link and read the article. Then I added a (fair) score of 3 and two dots as comment. Since when is two dots considered an abusive observation ???? :confused: The rating on his article was added 3 or 4 days before the incident in Soapbox 1.0. Seriously, people, do you think I am a time traveler ? :wtf: :-D When I pointed out the discrepancy in the dates to Oakman, he realised his mistake, deleted his comment and went underground :-D .. ..
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
-
Hi Oakman, I deleted my membership in Soapbox 1.0 because of your irrational response to my message. You said you wanted Palin to be President and I said I wished for the same thing. For some reason it got you all riled up and you posted responses like "you are a troll, that's your last warning" etc. I was completely amazed at the way your mind works. Why would agreeing with you be considered trolling ? I decided that it's not a good idea to be a member of a private forum controlled by someone who not quite OK in the head. So I deleted my membership. It's no big deal anyway, your soapbox 1.0 is just a very small group with 2 or 3 stormfront.org types posting there.
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
modified on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:54 PM
I saw this thread last night and was looking forward to reading the fireworks this morning. I even resisted reading the thread on the train this morning, saving it to read at work on a big monitor and with a coffee only to find that he hasn't bitten. I hope the old fella's alright. A shock like this kind of dissent at his age could be serious.
-
I saw this thread last night and was looking forward to reading the fireworks this morning. I even resisted reading the thread on the train this morning, saving it to read at work on a big monitor and with a coffee only to find that he hasn't bitten. I hope the old fella's alright. A shock like this kind of dissent at his age could be serious.
-
I saw this thread last night and was looking forward to reading the fireworks this morning. I even resisted reading the thread on the train this morning, saving it to read at work on a big monitor and with a coffee only to find that he hasn't bitten. I hope the old fella's alright. A shock like this kind of dissent at his age could be serious.
When you read the full thread in SB2 you will realise you are entitled to a 0% refund :P
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
-
When you read the full thread in SB2 you will realise you are entitled to a 0% refund :P
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
For ANY member to make abusive observations against an article just because the member has some personalized issue(s) with the author is not really playing with a "straight bat".
I did not make any abusive observations about his article. I saw him complaining about a 1 someone gave to his article. Out of curiosity I clicked on the link and read the article. Then I added a (fair) score of 3 and two dots as comment. Since when is two dots considered an abusive observation ???? :confused: The rating on his article was added 3 or 4 days before the incident in Soapbox 1.0. Seriously, people, do you think I am a time traveler ? :wtf: :-D When I pointed out the discrepancy in the dates to Oakman, he realised his mistake, deleted his comment and went underground :-D .. ..
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
Sahir Shah wrote:
When I pointed out the discrepancy in the dates to Oakman, he realised his mistake, deleted his comment and went underground
:thumbsup: What a hero he is.