Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Like, "Americans have some questionable values" versus "Everybody in Montana is an asshole".
Also, @Khwarz, I think I'll have to do some more digging through his posts to pinpoint the precise examples. Later, though. Sleepy now.
who u say about
I actually thought that that was Raven, what with the black background, blue cloak and clothing, and white skin.
MoeDantes > So is it appropriate to say that Rott has hopped on the banned-wagon?
laughtrack.jpg
Now if only you'd put a pause between "has" and "hopped", during which pause you had put on your sunglasses...
Stormtroper > I guess that's why they call it "forum warrior".
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/
GLORIOUSLeader > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The thing is that, even if saying "gay history is anal sex LOL" is insensitive, I've seen much worse all over, and hardly anyone has been banned for saying those things. I'll just assume that it was more of a straw that broke the camel's back.
Well, it is a quite common policy to have repeated warnings result in a ban.
BonSequitur > I think people who thought he was a 'good debater' are really sadly mistaken. Anyone actually paying attention to an extended conversation with him would have found him to be difficult to get across to, often misunderstanding people's points or exaggerating them into straw men to reply. He sounded polite and attentive, but most of his posts weren't really productive additions to the conversation.
This.
Chagen > At the very least, he clearly had a brain and was normally calm and reserved. That's better than the usual internet debater, a screaming semi-illiterate idiot.
However, this too.
BlackHumor > I find Tongpu much less infuriating than Rott. The fact he's still around is actually a pretty good proof Rott wasn't banned for having unpopular opinions.
There's also these reasons:
* Tongpu posts a lot less.
* Tongpu posts opinions that are often so far out of the mainstream that they are not seen as reasonable and thus not taken very seriously.
* Tongpu does not come out and argue very much. He tends to just leave comments and then that's about it. He's not the kind of person who stays with a thread until he's responded to everyone, then responded to everyone's responses to his response, and so forth.
GLORIOUSLeader > I'll even agree that OTC is a liberal circlejerk; when I brought up the fact that the Middle Eastern protest thread had next to nothing about any country save for Libya lately, I was met by one person agreeing with me, one person saying I had no right to complain because two of their friends had died in Libya (no disrespect to them), and almost everybody else completely ignoring that and going back to talking non-stop about only Libya.
1. How does neglecting non-Libyan protests and/or resistance movements for the moment show that OTC is a "liberal circlejerk"?
2. I totally support people talking about non-Libyan protests and/or resistance movements. I just usually don't have much news to post about them; my usual procedure is to check out that thread and then bring news from it to my friends elsewhere, actually.
Khwarizmi > If it was, Major Tom would have been banned before Rott even signed up.
This. Rott is, if anything, LESS like a stereotypical strawman than Major Tom.
GLORIOUSLeader > ^ How, exactly? I can count the number of times I've disagreed with something Major Tom's said by counting the number of posts he's made in the forum, but I won't call for him to be banned because a) I can ignore him and b) he is occasionally correct and I can see his viewpoint without him deciding to insult entire sweeps of opinions.
Yeah, he's actually pretty cool when he talks about non-political topics, such as military weapons and vehicles and Cave Story.
Myrmidon > No he wasn't. He had trouble seeing other people's points of view, and he could be annoying sometimes. But I fail to see how that makes him worse than the dozens of other tropers with the exact same problems.
Rott's problem was not that he would insult other users; Rott's problem was that he would insult their philosophies, subjecting the philosophies themselves to strawman arguments. That is actually what produced this latest spark.
Tnu1138 > Actually from what I saw Major Tom was only fiscally conservative you guys are falling in to the same Trap Jim Demint tries to set thatyou ahve to be Socially Conservative to be Fiscally Conservative why is it so bad to want to have freedom of person and property?
No, he's not actually fiscally conservative; he just parrots the conservative Republican lines about fiscal conservatism, from welfare queens to having to paying for someone else's health insurance to repeatedly associating liberals/Democrats with increasing taxes and increasing spending and forcing their actions and positions into an assumption of increasing taxes and/or spending. Especially without going into much detail about why increasing taxes or increasing spending would be bad, other than griping about the deficit.
Myrmidon > I don't know who Jim Demint is.
U.S. Senator from South Carolina, Republican, and one of the highest-profile tea-party types.
Myrmidon > Yeah, I hate bigots. And the Dutch.
You must be one of those fuckers from Philip II's Spain. I will not stand for your oppression of the Dutch!
A previously-unknown forum user
"13579"
is approaching fast!
serious or trolling (the latter being much more likely), you have to be
putting distinct effort into not seeing his posts as insulting.
Insulting to whom? Again, I would like to read the Tongpu post that's objectionable. I've read something like his last 120 posts and have found one thump and 119 totally kosher messages.
Tongpu is serious or trolling (the latter being much more likely), you
have to be putting distinct effort into not seeing his posts as
insulting."
Eh, maybe I'm dense, but I've never had a problem with them. He mostly seems to talk about himself, and while his nihilism/stated fondness for serial killers leaves me unimpressed, I don't recall him disparaging any posters or misrepresenting groups of people. Too bad I can't say the same about Rotty.
That was not only on-topic, but he only got into his more objectionable beliefs when asked. And he phrased his beliefs as his own opinions, not as facts which everyone else is somehow too stupid to recognize.
All in all, it's kinda proof that being even a little respectful to others goes a LONG way.