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.

I'm guessing they're a bit subjective in their writings. No surprise there, for any newpaper.

All this argument over whether she was in the right or in the wrong. It seems to me that the article is about the fact that the court agreed with her and awarded her the unemployment payments. One thing the court noted was that she didn't challenge the firing itself.

Man you kids can kill a thread fast these days. :nope:

Not sure if I'm understanding this, might be the langauge barrier and all ( you are English correct?). But I read from the above, you should apply your own local standards to happenings in other parts of the world, and that becomes the truth?

No.

No, apply common sense when reading news reports as there will be things that are true, things that are not true and things that are true but not as they seem.
Common sense in this story should have kicked in with her statement that I quoted as it just doesn't work like that.
As for your local/their local standards, all that was needed for her local standards was already present.