Well, Mr Houtham, I don’t think you get to use the word “uppity” however you want just because some people are being dicks.
Well, he was calling one person who had said anti-semitic things an anti-semite. He was doing it multiple times, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing to call out people who make anti-semitic remarks.
I don’t know factually whether RedFury is prejudiced or not. But repeating the accusation over and over again, for literally dozens of posts is what I thought would make some posters take him as a troll.
Like I say, I didn’t at the time think he was actually a troll, but abrasive. After reading the thread linked in the OP (the Redfury one) it’s obvious that he is unable or unwilling to meter his responses. It’s like he has only two speeds, normal post and hysterical overreaction.
Those reading along should note that Lobo is lying.
He has already admitted that there was one single accusation against only one poster based on one specific post that poster had made. Those reading along can, I’m sure, figure out why Lobo would pretend that one single accusation was really an excessive number and why one (correct) accusation would show that the person making it was a troll.
Likewise people can check the thread linked in the OP (where Lobo deliberately did not include his claims but only the reaction to them) and see that not only did he not specifically say he didn’t think I was a troll, but used his lie about multiple accusations made with abandon, in order to support his accusation (with enough weasel wording to later hop up on the cross and feign righteous indignation). Then after he figured that I’d taken the bait, he only then declared that some might ‘misconstrue’ that as trolling but that it was very 'abrasive,'to object to him lying about me and using that lie to accuse me of trolling. Obviously, his fictional ‘accusations made with abandon’ was a separate claim from him objecting to having his lie pointed out.
Likewise, as Lobo quoted my actual, rather tepid responses to his dishonesty in his OP, readers are free to wonder why he’s trying to cast them much more dramatically than facts could possibly support.
I have links to back up my side. Sorry about that.
But that thread (which wasn’t started by FinnAgain, btw) was about whether or not RedFury was an antisemite. It’s not like Finn was just throwing the antisemite thing out over and over again to be disruptive…that’s what the thread was about.
Folks should note that Lobo again is admitting that he was lying and trying to troll me in the ATMB thread. There were no “accusations” made with “abandon”. There was one, single accusation that was supported while others disagreed or objected to the very fact that it was made.
But “Finn accused one guy of anti-Semitism based on something that poster had said, and then Finn supported his claim while almost nobody challenged it on factual ground but only tried to shut Finn up for making the accusation… So that’s why people might think he’s a troll.” just doesn’t have the same impact, eh?
Contributions since I left work on Friday, thoughtfully spoilered:
If you weren’t so hysterically angry you might find the focus to understand.
From the first three pages (of nine) of the thread in question:
I don’t get it. The main criticism made of Finn appears to be that he goes on and on about his favourite subject, using the same terms of speech over and over again, at great length - that is, obsession.
Yet those criticising/making fun of Finn seem equally willing to go on and on and on about, well, him - using the same tired themes and pseudo-jokes over and over again, at great length, apparently endlessly.
To be fair, IIRC only one person even attempted to argue that I was wrong. The rest simply get upset because certain words are used, like going nuts that the word ‘flossing’ keeps coming up in a discussion of dental hygiene. Others, like SFG, troll simply if I respond to other people’s claims, like when Damuri said I called hum an anti-Semite and SFG trilled about the fact that I responded to that accusation.
The point is that it isn’t about the truth of my claims, but trying to shut me up for being audacious enough to simply make them. That their objections fall apart, like Lobo’s lie about multiple “accusations”, doesn’t phase them. Some only want to defend fellow travelers through any scummy method available, others just want to troll a bit. Still others like Clair are proud to admit that they neither know nor care what the facts are, but they sure wish that I’d stop talking about them.
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: the fact that the dunces are in confederacy is very inspiring. If there were valid objections, they most likely would have been raised.
Funny, those who accuse me of “pseudo-jokes” are generally idiots and/or liars who get ever so upset at being called out but strangely can never actually show how I’m incorrect… while vomiting up shit about someone else “pseudo-joking”.
You are simply an intellectual cripple and a coward, facts that show you have verbal diarrhea can’t be dealt with, and you have to merely flail about and claim that the facts are bad and mean and “tired themes.” You’re the type of idiot who clings so fiercely to a position of military stupidity that if you’re proven wrong, all you can do is flip out and rant about how someone else is being ever-so-mean to you… but somehow you can’t bring yourself to show how they’re wrong about anything, at all. “I’m being stupid and wrong and ignorant and you proved that by attacking my argument, and I can’t rebut what you’ve said, so I’ll just allege that you’re rabid. Yah, that’s the ticket!”
Of course, as you’re mildly retarded, it probably doesn’t cross your mind that you’re admitting that you can’t even hold your own in a debate with someone who you, yourself, consider to be irrational.
Poor stupid bastard, I’d almost feel sorry for you if it wasn’t more effort than you’re worth.
Also, predictably, you too have decided to change the subject since the fact that Red is a racist is nowhere near as attractive to you as vomiting up some nonsense about how your claims being repeatedly rebutted on factual grounds is “pseudo-joking”.
I didn’t actually write the above, that’s a post from Finn with “frothing” replaced by “pseudo-jokes” and a sentence about Tomndebb removed. Finn is a fucking nut. 
See what I mean?
And, as usual, Lobo isn’t even good at trolling.
No offense, but you are never going to be selected as a judge for the Troll Pageant.
Yeah, he’ll never fit under the bridge.
Speaking of which, one of the current Google links is “Join Us On The Bridge
On Mar 8 women will stand together on bridges around the world.”
That’ll show 'em.
Shit, I can see at least five bridges from my office. And that’s just what I have line-of-sight to; there are a bunch more within a short walking distance, especially if you include all the ones over the river. Which one am I supposed to stand on?!
I was just thinking the same thing. Lobohan, hop off the Lobobahn.
This whole specious Frothy anti-Semite/troll/bigot/liar WOT [sup]©[/sup] bores the living shit outta me.
So I’ll just quote my own damn self instead: My ideas remain the same.
And hot damn do they ever!
And again we have someone to provide a handy example of what I’m talking about.
Along with complaining about “anti-Semite/troll/bigot/liar” accusations (that are correct) and using the term “frothy” (because he’s upset about correct accusations), Red links to a post where he lied about there being anybody who thinks that “Israel can do no wrong” and reiterates his support for a racist post he made in which he named every politician in the US government whose name sounded Jewish to him, and accused them all of ethnic-based treachery and faux-patriotism. When it was pointed out that one of his Traitor Jews was actually Greek Orthodox, he retracted his accusation, proving that ethnicity was his guiding metric and not politics or ideology. He never gave any reason for including most of the names on his list, either, except that he thought they were Jews, or they were Jews in politics who dared to have political views which he didn’t approve of.
The only pseudo explanation Red has ever offered was that he was being hyperbolic. As if, naming every black person you can think of and accusing them all of watermelon thievery and dealing drugs, and then removing one guy’s name because you find out he’s just dark skinned and not black, is okay if you’re just being ‘hyperbolic’.
But as demonstrated time and again, people will come to the defense of an obvious racist such as Red. Or, at least, they’ll mindlessly attack someone who doesn’t appreciate such racism. Indeed, it’s taking much, much longer than we thought.