View Poll Results: Is Tony De Wonderful a troll or just full of ****?
Troll
9
23.08%
Full of ****
30
76.92%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll
TDW - troll or full of ****?
22 December 2010, 12:23 AM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 December 2010, 12:24 AM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find Muslim extremists mouthing off in the street offensive but they don't get picked up for hate crimes? So how come they can get away with it? Yet you mouth off against them you can get done for hate crimes?
Oops there we go again, attacking the old Muslims on SN... Perhaps there needs to be a one rule for all instead of one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.
Oops there we go again, attacking the old Muslims on SN... Perhaps there needs to be a one rule for all instead of one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.
However, someone spouting bollocks on a website, under a false name, to other people using false names, in an internal place (work/Home), is unlikely to be interpreted by the law in the same way (unless it comes to terrorism). In my personal experience.
22 December 2010, 12:39 AM
#96
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can use the search function yes? Hmmm... I wonder.
Goodnight
22 December 2010, 12:42 AM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 December 2010, 12:46 AM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mouth off in a public place - it's a hate crime. No matter who the antagonist is. If someone feels they or another have been a victim of a hate crime, it must be recorded as a hate crime.
However, someone spouting bollocks on a website, under a false name, to other people using false names, in an internal place (work/Home), is unlikely to be interpreted by the law in the same way (unless it comes to terrorism). In my personal experience.
However, someone spouting bollocks on a website, under a false name, to other people using false names, in an internal place (work/Home), is unlikely to be interpreted by the law in the same way (unless it comes to terrorism). In my personal experience.
22 December 2010, 12:53 AM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be great if it was reality but it isn't. Abu Hamza and his successors get to mouth off all they want in public, even in the press only a few weeks back it was highlighted how the islamic extremists had a police escort (more like protection) during a so called protest/rally when what it really was was hatred against the West. Why were they protected and not arrested for hate crimes? That's what so much of the country is sick of seeing.
Simply - no it's reality. But until someone, in real life, complains about it - and not the EDL/BNP who have other agendas - I can't see it being taken seriously.
22 December 2010, 01:00 AM
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok posts crossing over but on your last reply how is it the extremists are protected whilst the edl and bnp are seen as the troublemakers? They are all the same, extremists but the muslim extremists get police protection. That just causes more resentment amongst the public.
I don't envy the police and those officers are only doing what they are told from the top and get lumbered with ludicrous amounts of paperwork but it doesn't seem right that they can sit back and protect extremists to allow them to spout hatred of the UK?
I don't envy the police and those officers are only doing what they are told from the top and get lumbered with ludicrous amounts of paperwork but it doesn't seem right that they can sit back and protect extremists to allow them to spout hatred of the UK?
22 December 2010, 08:53 AM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He might be irritating at times but he is entitled to give his views just as much as anyone else.
Certainly does not deserve to have to put up with a thread like this one anyway. Its an example of unfair victimisation as far as I am concerned.
Les
Certainly does not deserve to have to put up with a thread like this one anyway. Its an example of unfair victimisation as far as I am concerned.
Les
22 December 2010, 08:57 AM
#106
I don't believe that is correct. As far as I know he has not taken issue with anyone personally even in the Muslim threads. The "opposition" on the other hand have attacked him on a personal level.
22 December 2010, 09:00 AM
#107
Scooby Regular
The problem with Tony is that he is accustomed to the tools of debate and uses them to subvert the debate. He has no interest in debating properly. If you bring up any point in a debate he either:
1. "Strawman"s it - i.e. rephrases your point to say something you didn't mean then refutes his interpretation of it.
2. Resorts to ad hominem - i.e. tries to render your argument invalid by attacking you, yourself - for example, miscontruing your meaning (intentionally) then characterising you as a ****, or a racist, or some other bogeyman.
3. Just ignores it.
Then when you refute his points properly, with references and evidence, he ignores what you have put then falsely accuses you of "strawmanning" "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority". His understanding and use of these terms shows that he is more than familiar with the technical terms of debate and this overwhelmingly demonstrates to me that he is not interested in reasoned debate, even though he is capable of it in principle and shows deep knowledge in certain subjects. He plays Scoobynet like a rather crap, out-of-tune violin, by harping upon the subjects that he knows are emotive and that appeal to the reactionary element. That is my definition of a troll, I'm afraid.
1. "Strawman"s it - i.e. rephrases your point to say something you didn't mean then refutes his interpretation of it.
2. Resorts to ad hominem - i.e. tries to render your argument invalid by attacking you, yourself - for example, miscontruing your meaning (intentionally) then characterising you as a ****, or a racist, or some other bogeyman.
3. Just ignores it.
Then when you refute his points properly, with references and evidence, he ignores what you have put then falsely accuses you of "strawmanning" "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority". His understanding and use of these terms shows that he is more than familiar with the technical terms of debate and this overwhelmingly demonstrates to me that he is not interested in reasoned debate, even though he is capable of it in principle and shows deep knowledge in certain subjects. He plays Scoobynet like a rather crap, out-of-tune violin, by harping upon the subjects that he knows are emotive and that appeal to the reactionary element. That is my definition of a troll, I'm afraid.
This post just about sums him up. He is not really having a debate at all because when I have tried he will ignore any points he has no answer to.
It took me a little time to realise this and then after that I have stopped entering into any discussion with him. What's the point?
Btw Markjmd, I am not harassing him and do not think he needs to be banned or anything like that. I do however think he is a troll.
In a way he is no different to PSL with his endless pro Labour and anti Tory posts
22 December 2010, 09:18 AM
#108
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he's troll then devoting a thread to him, even one intended to attract derogatory comments will be EXACTLY what he wants
If you think he's a PITA, there's really no need to advertise that fact and try and incite ill feeling towards the guy!
Best way to deal with either scenario is to IGNORE the person concerned!!!
If you think he's a PITA, there's really no need to advertise that fact and try and incite ill feeling towards the guy!
Best way to deal with either scenario is to IGNORE the person concerned!!!
22 December 2010, 01:06 PM
#109
Just to add just to try and stop any rumours about mulitiple aliases etc, there doesn't appear to be anything conclusive to say that he is using two or more alises at the same time.
Whilst it could be a user that left along time ago (not banned, just moved on elsewhere for a few years) that has returned could be the case, there is nothing wrong with that, and this too remains to be concluded and given benefit of the doubt. However returning users are usually obvious due to posting styles; For example a newbie wading gung-ho into NSR is blatant that it's someone who has been here before - we don't need to do any checking to confirm that.
Incorrect: https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-...sti-wagon.html
TDW in defence, like many regular new users started off in the general section talking about Subarus, of all things! A typical NSR troll wouldn't even bother with the general section, or only do so to wind up regulars with cheap shot remarks. Any witch-hunter can do an ascending order search on any user's posts to see how they start life off here. For example, my first posts were talking about dump valves and brake pads (of all things
). How many other NSR "regulars" have the same humble beginnings outside of NSR?
Ok, so without stating the obvious; if you don't like someone or you find them annoying, we have an ignore feature dedicated for such a purpose (sadly, you can't ignore me, sorry
).
And as for TDW. If you do read this unfortunate thread, maybe this is a indicator just to back down a bit. Picking a sensationalist Daily Mail (or other news source) headline and then posting a new thread linking to it is going to get annoying after the umpteenth time. the last user who did that to excess (not naming names) ended up with having most of his threads merged into one single thread.
Whilst it could be a user that left along time ago (not banned, just moved on elsewhere for a few years) that has returned could be the case, there is nothing wrong with that, and this too remains to be concluded and given benefit of the doubt. However returning users are usually obvious due to posting styles; For example a newbie wading gung-ho into NSR is blatant that it's someone who has been here before - we don't need to do any checking to confirm that.
Don't forget he has never owned a Scoob so that does make you wonder why he even joined this site in the first place.
TDW in defence, like many regular new users started off in the general section talking about Subarus, of all things! A typical NSR troll wouldn't even bother with the general section, or only do so to wind up regulars with cheap shot remarks. Any witch-hunter can do an ascending order search on any user's posts to see how they start life off here. For example, my first posts were talking about dump valves and brake pads (of all things
). How many other NSR "regulars" have the same humble beginnings outside of NSR? Ok, so without stating the obvious; if you don't like someone or you find them annoying, we have an ignore feature dedicated for such a purpose (sadly, you can't ignore me, sorry
). And as for TDW. If you do read this unfortunate thread, maybe this is a indicator just to back down a bit. Picking a sensationalist Daily Mail (or other news source) headline and then posting a new thread linking to it is going to get annoying after the umpteenth time. the last user who did that to excess (not naming names) ended up with having most of his threads merged into one single thread.
Last edited by ALi-B; 22 December 2010 at 01:25 PM. Reason: added link+quote
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fatboy_coach
General Technical
15
18 June 2016 03:48 PM