If a poster rips off another poster's name

treeplanter

Well-known member
I agree 100%. A self-confessed troll has no business judging a cowardly troll who refuses to reveal his identity. "Judge not, that ye be judged," and don't get your undergarments inextricably tangled in the process. Tree, may I suggest Downy to help fluff up your tighty whiteys, thereby hindering further clothing clusters?
Well, now that you have agreed that a troll has no business judging someone else - let's just go ahead and remove the 'hypothetical'

You, Stiggy Wiggy, admitted to me that you come here to CARM and post the things that you do for the purpose of "getting" my "panties in a twist"

You are a self-confessed troll who has now gone on record as affirming that a self-confessed troll has no business judging others
What else is there to say?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You, Stiggy Wiggy, admitted to me that you come here to CARM and post the things that you do for the purpose of "getting" my "panties in a twist"

Wrong guy. I never said that. However, besides Downy I have also found that a single sheet of Bounce placed in the dryer keeps Fruit of the Looms soft and flocculent.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Wrong guy. I never said that. However, besides Downy I have also found that a single sheet of Bounce placed in the dryer keeps Fruit of the Looms soft and flocculent.
You did say it, Stiggy

Lucky for you it was lost when the last version of the board crashed

I know you said it
You know you said it

Go ahead and deny it if you want, I'm done here

{I just hope you have enough integrity to resist the urge to make another punk move and make up some outrageous lie about me saying something that I never did - we shall see...}
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You did say it, Stiggy
Nope, I said that about one post, and one post only. From Wikipedia:

"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

Entangling your panties once does not make me a troll any more than a second team RB from Tulane scoring a 2 yard TD once makes him an All American.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Nope, I said that about one post, and one post only. From Wikipedia:

"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

Entangling your panties once does not make me a troll any more than a second team RB from Tulane scoring a 2 yard TD once makes him an All American.
Alright, Stigs, alright

Time will tell
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
How should we deal with this hypothetical situation:

A hypothetical Christian poster sets a record for number of posts on a hypothetical Christian discussion board. The content of his posts rankles a hypothetical atheist poster to the extent that when the hypothetical discussion board goes down and is replaced by a different format, he registers under the name used by the aforementioned Christian poster, thereby shutting out said Christian poster from being able to continue using that name he had been using for years.

Now obviously this hypothetical atheist made a hypothetically punk move motivated by nothing but spite and perhaps jealousy. To answer my question in the first paragraph above, I suppose any hypothetical reader of the hypothetical atheist's post should consider the source and dismiss the content as unworthy of consideration, regardless of whether the hypothetical atheist with the punk move hailed from Britain or America.
How about we buy them both a hypothetical beer and everybody calm down?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Having read the hypothetical posts of the hypothetical victim, he should just take on the name "Borat". It would be more suitable and clearer for everybody.
No. Borat is hilariously funny, obviously a completely fraudulent character who claims outrageously stupid things and expresses views that no one sane would ever espouse. Oh... I see what you mean.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
And perhaps Jack the Ripper might have randomly chosen the name Winston Churchill.



Perhaps the last thing he desires is respect from the likes of you.
He may have done. In which case Winston would have been Sh!t out of luck.
To paraphrase Shakespeare. A turd by any other name would smell as rank.
 

5wize

Well-known member
No. Borat is hilariously funny, obviously a completely fraudulent character who claims outrageously stupid things and expresses views that no one sane would ever espouse. Oh... I see what you mean.
When reading our hypothetical victims posts, I can chuckle through it by imagining he sounds just like him.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
"To imitate someone is to pay the person a genuine compliment — often an unintended compliment."

"

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"​


In Professional Psychology, their obsessions are how they display their personalities.
Except he is not imitating you.
He's not posting random drivel.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
How should we deal with this hypothetical situation:

A hypothetical Christian poster sets a record for number of posts on a hypothetical Christian discussion board. The content of his posts rankles a hypothetical atheist poster to the extent that when the hypothetical discussion board goes down and is replaced by a different format, he registers under the name used by the aforementioned Christian poster, thereby shutting out said Christian poster from being able to continue using that name he had been using for years.

Now obviously this hypothetical atheist made a hypothetically punk move motivated by nothing but spite and perhaps jealousy. To answer my question in the first paragraph above, I suppose any hypothetical reader of the hypothetical atheist's post should consider the source and dismiss the content as unworthy of consideration, regardless of whether the hypothetical atheist with the punk move hailed from Britain or America.

Taking someone else's old username is just sad and pathetic, but technically within the limits of a new forum. Whoever had their old username taken will still post in their usual way and it will be obvious. They can also make a similar username to their old one.
 
Top