I'm sure that this has already been mentioned, but I have three pet peeves that make me want to stab people.
1. The occupatio.
This is when a poster makes a claim of the type that "You're so pathetic that you can't help but reply to me." It pigdeonholes the responder into two courses of action: rebutting but confirming (to the idiot peon masses) that the responder has no life or not responding (and thus "losing" the argument).
2. The "no-lifer."
The comment amounts to "you need to get a life instead of debating." The "no-lifer" is completely irrelevant to the debate--as the maker of the comment lacks an equal amount of life because s/he is responding to the debate--but it is a classic technique that many morons will triumph as pwnage rather than avoiding the argument.
3. The "IGNORED" message.
WELCOME TO IGNORE.
'Nuff said.
Originally posted by SchecterMaybe it's how you said it that threw me.
i guess you're done fixing the forum? have you abandoned your quest for forum peace, harmony, and good will for off-topic douchebaggery and ad hominem dribble? guess so. now die in a fire 😊ive seen many instances where otherwise level headed people lash out like a cornered dog. maybe its more instinctive than idiotic since it seems to be a kneejerk reaction, but i see it happen plenty of times.
Originally posted by Zebedee😆 And yet, you still don't realise.
Look 2DMaster asked a question, I gave him another question, he gave me a reply, to which I replied and you started wishing death and aids on me.Whatever 😬
mist created it. although my bout with a particular troll seemed to have been his inspiration. notice the little ferret on the kmc screensI forgot who the member is, but I can see him.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm sure that this has already been mentioned, but I have three pet peeves that make me want to stab people.1. The occupatio.
This is when a poster makes a claim of the type that "You're so pathetic that you can't help but reply to me." It pigdeonholes the responder into two courses of action: rebutting but confirming (to the idiot peon masses) that the responder has no life or not responding (and thus "losing" the argument).
2. The "no-lifer."
The comment amounts to "you need to get a life instead of debating." The "no-lifer" is completely irrelevant to the debate--as the maker of the comment lacks an equal amount of life because s/he is responding to the debate--but it is a classic technique that many morons will triumph as pwnage rather than avoiding the argument.
3. The "IGNORED" message.
WELCOME TO IGNORE.
'Nuff said.
1- i like to refer to that as 'failed reverse psychology'
2- see '1'
3- sometimes ignore is simply necessary. depends on its usage. when someone uses it to avoid a point and claim some sort of win, its a pathetic tool. however when dealing with a troll or someone who proves to only be abrasive yet has nothing to add to any discussion,it can be useful.
i mostly use the ignore function for the 'jeckyl and hyde' members. these are the ones who will lead you into a reasonable discussion and then suddenly flip out and morph into a troll, spewing insults and accusations left and right. i find its best to avoid their baiting and switching all together...nip it in the bud, so to speak.
Originally posted by Schecter
mist created it. although my bout with a particular troll seemed to have been his inspiration. notice the little ferret on the kmc screens
Surely by engaging in a bout with a troll you are facilitating the trolling. I don't think it's a good idea to do myself. I enjoyed mists video though.
Originally posted by lord xyz
REsulting to trolling by far, is the worst tactic, regardless of the reason.
Most people on line would say "feeding trolls" was worse, but what do I know compared to a forum with very few regular posters. Many of whom are children.
"that was taken out of context"
see rush limbaugh. make a disgusting comment, knowing full well what you are saying. when called on it for what it is, claim that it was taken out of context, and what you actually meant was.. *enter team of apologist writers/excuse makers to desperately attempt to patch it up with longwinded explanations*
Originally posted by Schecter
"that was taken out of context"see rush limbaugh. make a disgusting comment, knowing full well what you are saying. when called on it for what it is, claim that it was taken out of context, and what you actually meant was.. *enter team of apologist writers/excuse makers to desperately attempt to patch it up with longwinded explanations*
Although often context is the key so sometimes things are taken out of context.
Originally posted by Zebedee
Someone posts a thread not realising that said thread is some form of humour or satire and takes thread content seriously.
When called on thread being satire, gets defensive and says they posted it for entertainment purposes only when clearly they posted it's content for serious discussion.
there, now you're getting the hang of it. didnt feel all evil and dirty now, did it?
Originally posted by Schecter
so you're pretty much prompting me to ignore you?
Only if you are saying I am a troll. Although obviously I have done nothing "trollish". One might then turn this around and say given your last post I am prompting myself to ignore you. Which aside from issuing the wish I was dead or caught Aids. I have done.