And the South shall rise again

nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
You know, I can't help but noticing something prevalent on threads where UB posts and differing views exist; I see Buck start with the Ad Hominem, and I see the opposition follow suit. Everyone bitches about how he argues, but eventually descends into, and encourages, the mudslinging. Why gratify his response with negative attention? If he's a troll, that's what he thrives on. If he's not a troll; why not state your argument and leave him contemplate it until he realizes the truth of your statements? Isn't returning his personal attacks in kind degrading the validity of your argument by avoiding the actual subject and lending validity to his Ad Hominems? Buck: The same question applies to you. Why lower yourself to their level if you think they are in the wrong? What is gained aside from a petty victory? How does it lend credence to your argument by being so abrasive? (For some reason, paragraph breaks don't work on this forum. Sorry for the single block of text.)
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Twelve weeks counted how? The standard pregnancy calculator puts conception at week three. That means you've been actually pregnant only two months when the strict count is observed. cn
Click to expand...
Gestation is usually counted by a doctor using size and development progress using an ultrasound.

They usually don't count the weeks before implantation.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
You know, I can't help but noticing something prevalent on threads where UB posts and differing views exist; I see Buck start with the Ad Hominem, and I see the opposition follow suit. Everyone bitches about how he argues, but eventually descends into, and encourages, the mudslinging. Why gratify his response with negative attention? If he's a troll, that's what he thrives on. If he's not a troll; why not state your argument and leave him contemplate it until he realizes the truth of your statements? Isn't returning his personal attacks in kind degrading the validity of your argument by avoiding the actual subject and lending validity to his Ad Hominems? Buck: The same question applies to you. Why lower yourself to their level if you think they are in the wrong? What is gained aside from a petty victory? How does it lend credence to your argument by being so abrasive? (For some reason, paragraph breaks don't work on this forum. Sorry for the single block of text.)
Click to expand...
Why not stop crying?

Sheila.
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
You know, I can't help but noticing something prevalent on threads where UB posts and differing views exist; I see Buck start with the Ad Hominem, and I see the opposition follow suit. Everyone bitches about how he argues, but eventually descends into, and encourages, the mudslinging. Why gratify his response with negative attention? If he's a troll, that's what he thrives on. If he's not a troll; why not state your argument and leave him contemplate it until he realizes the truth of your statements? Isn't returning his personal attacks in kind degrading the validity of your argument by avoiding the actual subject and lending validity to his Ad Hominems? Buck: The same question applies to you. Why lower yourself to their level if you think they are in the wrong? What is gained aside from a petty victory? How does it lend credence to your argument by being so abrasive? (For some reason, paragraph breaks don't work on this forum. Sorry for the single block of text.)
Click to expand...
UB is often entertaining.
Sorta like a Barrel of Monkeys:

A quantity of fun first postulated by Vaudevillian scientists of the early 20th century. This unit has not yet been directly measured in an accurate way. Preliminary research in "barrel of monkeys" observations has found that there do exist things which are both "more fun than a barrel of monkeys" and less fun, but no accurate measurement of the barrel of monkeys itself has been taken. It is theorized that, since many more things are described as being "more fun than a barrel of monkeys" than less, a barrel of monkeys must not be much fun at all.Research at the Friar's Club of Comedic Science continues, but many believe that the fun quotient of a barrel of monkeys cannot be directly measured. In double-blind test trials, monkeys will leave the barrel before accurate measurements can be taken, and no more than a single monkey will stay in the barrel at an given time, hence the so-called "second monkey barrier" (SMB). Researchers at the Hasbro Institute of Higher Learning (led by Professor Milton Bradley), however, have noted that a "barrel of monkey" is rather dull, even when the attempt to introduce a second monkey is made. Attempts to work around the SMB by sedating monkeys have failed miserably, as a barrel of sedated monkeys exhibits a fun factor of only .6, comparable to the fun factor of box of bricks, which registers at 1.7. Other scientists (quantum comedians) believe that direct observation of this phenomenon of fun is impossible in the first place due to the fact that the observation itself would cloud any accurate measure.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
Buck: The same question applies to you. Why lower yourself to their level if you think they are in the wrong? What is gained aside from a petty victory? How does it lend credence to your argument by being so abrasive? (For some reason, paragraph breaks don't work on this forum. Sorry for the single block of text.)
Click to expand...
i used to do these debates and type out long responses and be polite and whatnot.

i mean, i even dropped the mod spot because i felt i was too abrasive but looking back i was not. rolli even asked me to come back and mod any time, although i am sure i have burned that bridge by now.

there are still plenty of people who fall into my "debate intelligently" category, but they are few and we've already mostly covered everything. there are more and more people who fall into the far different category of "troll mercilessly". and they all have different reasons for being trolled mercilessly. many have worked their way out of that group.

for example:

harrekin: used to troll the shit out of him, we talked, now we seem to have a pact not to interfere with each other's trolling and there are even certain members we co-troll, such as red1966.

red1966: has advanced and defended all sorts of specious arguments. just off the top of my head, he has advanced and defended the argument that gays have equal marriage rights as straights since either party is welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex. kinda like black people never had unequal right sif only they painted themselves white.

NLXSK1: never seems to slow down his roll when confronted by evidence to the contrary. says fucking weird shit sometimes (see my sig). eminently trollable.

fb360: would troll this guy harder but he seems too drunk to get my entertainment value out of it. plus, we went to the same college. so mild trolling.

muylocoNC: we live similar lifestyles but he just repeats too many words. i had to wean him off of "liberla lemmings" and "eco loons", but he's still going as if spotted owls prove that climate change is just a hoax. not even bad science, a hoax. a scam.

doer: old dumb retard. troll when things get dull.

desertdude: old, smug, racist prick. troll meanly.

trolling: would totally troll this guy, but he's fairly untrollable.

kpmarine: generally agree with, slightly less left leaning than myself. too composed a poster to troll even if i disagree.

beenthere: yeah, where is that guy? :lol:

fitch303: never posted again after i composed a list of his openly racist statements.

illegal smile: laugh, troll, laugh again.

mr. neutron: mustachioed hooker joke opportunity.

rob roy: one trick pony, one argument to be had, intractable. do not troll.

undertheice: doesn't respond well to trolling, but fun to troll anyway. usually takes a bite of the bait before letting go.


i hope rollitup doesn't condense mine into an unreadable block of text. it has done that before to me.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
kpmarine said:
You know, I can't help but noticing something prevalent on threads where UB posts and differing views exist; I see Buck start with the Ad Hominem, and I see the opposition follow suit. Everyone bitches about how he argues, but eventually descends into, and encourages, the mudslinging. Why gratify his response with negative attention? If he's a troll, that's what he thrives on. If he's not a troll; why not state your argument and leave him contemplate it until he realizes the truth of your statements? Isn't returning his personal attacks in kind degrading the validity of your argument by avoiding the actual subject and lending validity to his Ad Hominems? Buck: The same question applies to you. Why lower yourself to their level if you think they are in the wrong? What is gained aside from a petty victory? How does it lend credence to your argument by being so abrasive? (For some reason, paragraph breaks don't work on this forum. Sorry for the single block of text.)
Click to expand...
Because the obama-zombies are IO's (in orbit) and they provide hours of politically correct comic relief bathed in double standards of ignorance. He's restored my faith in jesters to adequately entertain...
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Because the obama-zobmies are IO's (in orbit) and they provide hours of politically correct comic relief bathed in double standards of ignorance. He's restored my faith in jesters to adequately entertain...
Click to expand...
Well that's good, at least they're not zombies!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Because the obama-zombies are IO's (in orbit) and they provide hours of politically correct comic relief bathed in double standards of ignorance. He's restored my faith in jesters to adequately entertain...
Click to expand...
and you remind me of the paulbot conspiracy crackpots we saw for so long until rawn pawl crawled backed into his turtle tunnel.

too deluded to accept facts, and thus fairly untrollable.

at least we both agree that doer is retarded.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i used to do these debates and type out long responses and be polite and whatnot.

i mean, i even dropped the mod spot because i felt i was too abrasive but looking back i was not. rolli even asked me to come back and mod any time, although i am sure i have burned that bridge by now.

there are still plenty of people who fall into my "debate intelligently" category, but they are few and we've already mostly covered everything. there are more and more people who fall into the far different category of "troll mercilessly". and they all have different reasons for being trolled mercilessly. many have worked their way out of that group.

for example:

harrekin: used to troll the shit out of him, we talked, now we seem to have a pact not to interfere with each other's trolling and there are even certain members we co-troll, such as red1966.

red1966: has advanced and defended all sorts of specious arguments. just off the top of my head, he has advanced and defended the argument that gays have equal marriage rights as straights since either party is welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex. kinda like black people never had unequal right sif only they painted themselves white.

NLXSK1: never seems to slow down his roll when confronted by evidence to the contrary. says fucking weird shit sometimes (see my sig). eminently trollable.

fb360: would troll this guy harder but he seems too drunk to get my entertainment value out of it. plus, we went to the same college. so mild trolling.

muylocoNC: we live similar lifestyles but he just repeats too many words. i had to wean him off of "liberla lemmings" and "eco loons", but he's still going as if spotted owls prove that climate change is just a hoax. not even bad science, a hoax. a scam.

doer: old dumb retard. troll when things get dull.

desertdude: old, smug, racist prick. troll meanly.

trolling: would totally troll this guy, but he's fairly untrollable.

kpmarine: generally agree with, slightly less left leaning than myself. too composed a poster to troll even if i disagree.

beenthere: yeah, where is that guy? :lol:

fitch303: never posted again after i composed a list of his openly racist statements.

illegal smile: laugh, troll, laugh again.

mr. neutron: mustachioed hooker joke opportunity.

rob roy: one trick pony, one argument to be had, intractable. do not troll.

undertheice: doesn't respond well to trolling, but fun to troll anyway. usually takes a bite of the bait before letting go.


i hope rollitup doesn't condense mine into an unreadable block of text. it has done that before to me.
Click to expand...
So, if I'm reading right, you're just doing it for the fun of it? I can respect that, it's fun sometimes. Truly effective trolling can even venture into the realm of satire at times; so I can see it's usefulness. If everyone knows you're baiting people for the fun of it, then it's their own fault for encouraging it. I was just concerned that some folks may be taking it more seriously. Your posts are coming through fine. It's been an issue for me in the reply box. You can't put the breaks in at all if you have my problem. There's no guessing involved.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
Harrekin said:
Iv read in certain Australian provinces (is that what they're called?) you can grow 4 non-hydroponic cannabis plants.

Is this true? I think it was specifically the NW.
Click to expand...
only in the ACT... everywhere else illegal in every way shape and form
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
UncleBuck said:
and you remind me of the paulbot conspiracy crackpots we saw for so long until rawn pawl crawled backed into his turtle tunnel.

too deluded to accept facts, and thus fairly untrollable.

at least we both agree that doer is retarded.
Click to expand...
LMFAO... You just have no comebacks - i'll go there you won't...
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Because the obama-zombies are IO's (in orbit) and they provide hours of politically correct comic relief bathed in double standards of ignorance. He's restored my faith in jesters to adequately entertain...
Click to expand...
See? There we go with the personal attacks that really explain nothing. While Buck may be an "obama-zombie", what is gained by trying to troll him in return? Doesn't it just repel the people that may be otherwise swayed for to your side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top