I would say you're being a little selective in your support of accusations of trolling.

A little? :DL

Deja vu again? :stare: Where have I heard that before...?

The thread. :doh:

Then allow me to explain.

Those words, except for the paraphrased first sentence, were letter to letter August's own. It's not the first time and I reckon not the last either he has waged his cute little anti-Tribesman crusade, speaking about "the rest of us", wondering why people reply to him and, in the past as demonstrated, also suggesting the "rest of us" should put him on ignore list. It strikes me as extremely arrogant to continuously do so, no matter how much you disagree with someone. Hence the little imitation.

As for Tribesman, I have questioned his style in the past and will continue to do so. Just because I didn't happen to do it in this thread doesn't mean I condone it. I just don't go trumpeting about the people on my ignore list and suggest that everyone else should also ignore him so we would eventually get rid of him. That would be silly. If really pissed off, I'd simply put him on my ignore list and let the world keep revolving.

Edit: funny. Now I'm a socialist too. Do I even want to hear what that is based on?

Trolling aside, tribesman is still wrong. In at will states you cannot challenge a firing anyways, outside of extreme circumstances. The only true recourse you have is to challenge for unemployment. Which that works out to be the same as challenging the firing, since the board decides whether you should have been fired or not, and the emPloyer still has to pay benefits or not.

I did not recall that. I've always considered you to be one of the better posters on here, and I should have trusted that judgement. You have my apologies.

As the old saying goes, "Speak in haste, repent at leisure."

That means a lot coming from you.

Naturally accepted, if there ever was need to apologize in the first place. Part of discourse is explaining when someone demands it, and I'm not stranger to that.

:salute:

I love this thread!

:up:

I'd be quite happy to do that but you fanbois keep quoting his troll posts which bypasses the board filters. So as long as I have to read his tripe anyways i'll keep commenting on it.

If you don't like that then feel free to do what you think is appropriate.

Really?
The "extreme circumstances" I mentioned as being the only grounds for challenging an actual firing:yep:
No, a challenge on the very limited grounds is a seperate issue entirely, challenging for unemployment only covers if the firing was of a type where you can get unemployment or cannot get it, it doesn't challenge the actual firing at all.

No the board decides on if the firing was for one of the reasons that makes you ineligible for welfare payments.

For someone who made a claim that I was wrong you have done a very very bad job on the subject matter:rotfl2:

@Hottentot
Word for word its just yet another one of his very regular trolls, just popping into topics and throwing silly insults while making no comments about the subject matter at all.

Its just August the trolls very partisan politics coming into play, a bit like when Zeewolf calls everyone Jewish.

@the troll
But you don't, you just repeat the same old mindless nonsense again and again.

Ok yup. I stand corrected. Troll. Pretty sure restating the previous comments as new arguments is a tool of the troll.

The fact that he has "fanbois" has never made you question your hate for him, but instead just give yet another label to those who haven't done as you constantly order them to do?


OK, the rest aside, was this necessary? I often find myself writing similar endings to my posts. Then I stop for a while and ask myself the same question: "is this necessary? Does it make my post better? Does it make my argument stronger?" Usually I find the answer is not and that ridiculing people just makes my own post look dumber.

In these cases I'm often reminded of some of the wisest words I have ever heard in the university during a lecture: "We should have no reason to be mean to those who are wrong. Since we already know they are wrong, there really is no need."

^This

Pretty sure that restating an arguement because someone doesn't understand is restating an arguement because someone doesn't understand.
Nothing portrayed as new at all, though there is plenty portrayed as "you clearly don't really know what you are talking about" and "you obviously didn't read the statements you are taking issue with did you"

So....
Yet you still seem to have a problem with that:yep:

Just like August, it is you who is being the troll.


@Hottentot
Was it accurate?
I do understand your point though, it is one SS and several other very good posters often raise.

A simple question for you though.
Take the first two elements I put in this topic.
1 "did she?"...should that simple question not give pause to people carrying on in the same vein(especially if they havn't even read the story they are talking about)?
2 "a quote from the lady herself".....does that quote not set the alarm bells ringing as the statement wouldn't stand without qualifiers even if she was just talking about herself in her own home, let alone at a workplace.

Most of what you say actually is accurate. Which is exactly why in my opinion you don't need to make such additions: you can usually make your point in a convincing manner anyway, whereas ridiculing people just earns you enemies.

And believe me, I know the temptation and am prone to falling for it in a face-to-face debate when there is much less time for consideration. My postcount here may not be high, but it would be counted in at least well over a thousand if I had posted all those messages that I ultimately have ended up deleting after realizing that they would do nothing except serve my own amusement for a second or two. Fortunately this form of discussion gives me plenty of time to think before speaking, so that I wouldn't always speak what I think. Or at least I can say it in a more reasonable way from which we can continue.


I'd say yes, once more you made a good argument. Then if someone ignores an argument and does not come up with an alternative, it's his/her shame and should speak for the poster well enough (generally speaking).

I'm sure the audience in Subsim is smart enough to notice such things. But this case is somewhat like a good book that can be ruined if the author thinks the readers are stupid and explains everything in such detail that nothing is left for them to think independently. By underlining things too strongly, you eventually end up turning the attention from the other poster to yourself, which seems counter-productive.

I love this thread.

Group hug? Some could definitely use one.

When I see ridiculing remarks I tend to dismiss whole post as nonsense without putting much effort to reading it. If person wants others to take himself seriously instead of "hey that is troll" views such remarks do no good.

Just my 2 cents. :salute:

I guess Hottentot gained the moral victory here. Nicely played.

Now, will someone please tell me how is someone going to make a point, considering the issue happened in a multistate country in which every state has its own laws, on a multinational forum ?????

Common sense.
Take a newspaper article and treat it like it is from the Daily Mail and is talking about the EU. All the needed detail will be there but not necasarily as it is being portrayed.