OFF TOPIC

[Ianonabike]

My right to reply to a baby tangent:

Option 4 - it depends on the context.

Option 5 - it depends on the context and whether the offence is deserved.

Option 6 - sometimes the kindest thing is to jolt a person who is persistently nasty or themselves offensive.

Option 7 - it's not my 'go to' word.

Option 8 - I think all people are daffodils and never hold back.

Option 9 - say ''nobody has the right to take offence!''

Option 10 - say ''everybody has the right to free peach innit. I know my rights.''

Option 11 - appoint oneself and forum moderator shortly after arrival.

Option 12 - start at least two new threads about the person that you have convinced yourself said it, though without any evidence.

Option 13 - start a poll to try to harass them into leaving.

Option 14 - sod the poll, I've decided by myself that they must be guilty because they declared a personal characteristic.

Option 15 - raise a posse.

Option 16 - think up something more extreme because I am offended on somebody else's behalf and I can't get it out of my head.

Option 17 - deny that your actual avatar was ever an image of protesters demanding absolute freedom of speech.

"Option 6 - sometimes the kindest thing is to jolt a person who is persistently nasty or themselves offensive."

First time I've seen tit for tat dressed up as "the kindest thing".

"Option 11 - appoint oneself and forum moderator shortly after arrival."

According to CXRAndy that position has already been filled.

"Option 12 - start at least two new threads about the person that you have convinced yourself said it, though without any evidence."

Now look who's playing at forum moderator.

It's not all about you.

"Option 13 - start a poll to try to harass them into leaving."

Leave? Please, stay. Exercise your free speech. It gives me a chance to exercise my scepticism. Either that or drive you crazy by ignoring you. I'll flip a coin.

Admit it: your description of me as a "petty squabbler with fanciful ideas, pompous self-importance, and over-developed hyperbole", and now harasser, were gleaned from looking in a mirror.

"Option 14 - sod the poll, I've decided by myself that they must be guilty because they declared a personal characteristic."

I'm not treating you any different than I would any other daffodil.

"Option 15 - raise a posse."

Sounding increasingly paranoid now.

"Option 16 - think up something more extreme because I am offended on somebody else's behalf and I can't get it out of my head."

I think you're thinking too much about all this. We have disagreements. I present my case; you present yours, such as it is. This is a forum after all.

"Option 17 - deny that your actual avatar was ever an image of protesters demanding absolute freedom of speech."

I'm not quite sure what you're going on about here, but you did prompt me to look into my avatar. This guy is in the photo:


View: https://youtu.be/rWeh3fcE0s8?si=wvGkurM1j1aa1HN9

One either for the free speech thread, or the men's dress style thread on the main site.

We have some right to speak about other people, but it is not free of consequence

Tell us more about these possible consequences. Or not, as I thought you had committed to ignoring me. Let that be a lesson: never promise what you can't deliver.

Having followed the link Rusty Nails provided here in the Greens thread, I can see that at one point you (you you, not Monkers you, as he helpfully established) showed concern that icowden not get in trouble with his employer due to his posts on that thread. As touching as that may have been, others at the time considered it a veiled threat. You've since apologised to icowden, perhaps keen to have him in your "posse".

Debating you is not much different from banging one's head against a wall. Perhaps slightly more painful.

I don't suggest we waste time searching history.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

 

[monkers]

My right to reply to a baby tangent:


"Option 6 - sometimes the kindest thing is to jolt a person who is persistently nasty or themselves offensive."

First time I've seen tit for tat dressed up as "the kindest thing".

"Option 11 - appoint oneself and forum moderator shortly after arrival."

According to CXRAndy that position has already been filled.

"Option 12 - start at least two new threads about the person that you have convinced yourself said it, though without any evidence."

Now look who's playing at forum moderator.

It's not all about you.

"Option 13 - start a poll to try to harass them into leaving."

Leave? Please, stay. Exercise your free speech. It gives me a chance to exercise my scepticism. Either that or drive you crazy by ignoring you. I'll flip a coin.

Admit it: your description of me as a "petty squabbler with fanciful ideas, pompous self-importance, and over-developed hyperbole", and now harasser, were gleaned from looking in a mirror.

"Option 14 - sod the poll, I've decided by myself that they must be guilty because they declared a personal characteristic."

I'm not treating you any different than I would any other daffodil.

"Option 15 - raise a posse."

Sounding increasingly paranoid now.

"Option 16 - think up something more extreme because I am offended on somebody else's behalf and I can't get it out of my head."

I think you're thinking too much about all this. We have disagreements. I present my case; you present yours, such as it is. This is a forum after all.

"Option 17 - deny that your actual avatar was ever an image of protesters demanding absolute freedom of speech."

I'm not quite sure what you're going on about here, but you did prompt me to look into my avatar. This guy is in the photo:


View: https://youtu.be/rWeh3fcE0s8?si=wvGkurM1j1aa1HN9

One either for the free speech thread, or the men's dress style thread on the main site.


Tell us more about these possible consequences. Or not, as I thought you had committed to ignoring me. Let that be a lesson: never promise what you can't deliver.

Having followed the link Rusty Nails provided here in the Greens thread, I can see that at one point you (you you, not Monkers you, as he helpfully established) showed concern that icowden not get in trouble with his employer due to his posts on that thread. As touching as that may have been, others at the time considered it a veiled threat. You've since apologised to icowden, perhaps keen to have him in your "posse".

Debating you is not much different from banging one's head against a wall. Perhaps slightly more painful.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Do you understand the purpose of speech marks? In case not, it means I'm either quoting the something said by else or paraphrasing things often heard. I was in doubt until I saw that you do indeed understand speech marks because you go on to quote George Santayana.

This is desperate stuff Ian, and you should probably reflect and stop.

 

[monkers]

@Ianonabike ... here's the thing.

You are not debating, you are attempting to browbeat. That is your on-line persona. You find a person you think you can intimidate, and then find you can't stop yourself. You lose control of yourself.

 

[Ianonabike]

If you don't step away from the mirror you'll fall in.

 

[Ianonabike]

I often see CXRAndy called a troll. I don't get it. So he posts a lot of tweets. So he has unpopular (on here) opinions. I've read briantrumpet's thread "Trolls kill forums" and remain unconvinced as to the case against him. I think it's important to have a range of views, including those obtained from Twitter. You might look at it this way – he goes there so you don't have to. If a tweet interests me I'll look into it and decide if it has any merit. Interesting conversations can be had from misinformation/disinformation where applicable.

 

[classic33]

I often see CXRAndy called a troll. I don't get it. So he posts a lot of tweets. So he has unpopular (on here) opinions. I've read briantrumpet's thread "Trolls kill forums" and remain unconvinced as to the case against him. I think it's important to have a range of views, including those obtained from Twitter. You might look at it this way – he goes there so you don't have to. If a tweet interests me I'll look into it and decide if it has any merit. Interesting conversations can be had from misinformation/disinformation where applicable.

But he came on here to disrupt the forum, purely and simply because this site isn't moderated. Then, after the Stockport attacks were dealt with in court with custodial sentences handed out, he gets his account deleted. He rejoined earlier this year, under the same username.

The Twitter and X posts he's made on both accounts make up just short of 3/4 of his post total. They are not really a discussion point as over half have nothing to do with the actual subject. There is more he might be willing to add.

 

[Shortfall]

I don't find it too onerous a task to scroll past most of Andycxr's Twitter posts. I agree with Ianonabike. There's lots of shíte posted in here and it doesn't all come from Andy (yes I know I'm leaving an open goal here, fill your boots).

 

[Ian H]

[yawn]

 

[briantrumpet]

[yawn]

You've had a tyring day.

 

[Ianonabike]

Could also be an overheated brain.


View: https://youtu.be/I0dQx4SNSwE

 

[Ian H]

You've had a tyring day.

Tubeless tyres over a mat of hedge clippings proved their worth.

 

[BoldonLad]

I often see CXRAndy called a troll. I don't get it. So he posts a lot of tweets. So he has unpopular (on here) opinions. I've read briantrumpet's thread "Trolls kill forums" and remain unconvinced as to the case against him. I think it's important to have a range of views, including those obtained from Twitter. You might look at it this way – he goes there so you don't have to. If a tweet interests me I'll look into it and decide if it has any merit. Interesting conversations can be had from misinformation/disinformation where applicable.

A range of views!, now, there is an interesting thought 😂

 

[CXRAndy]

Just think of me as the leather bell cover to the lefties deafening ringing in your ears

 

[Rusty Nails]

Never trust anyone who regularly tells you they are fair and reasonable.

 

[spen666]

Never trust anyone who regularly tells you they are fair and reasonable.

That's a fair and reasonable stance