I have seven friends who meet with me most Mondays at 5 pm (start of the 5-7 happy hour) at a bar. We call it the Monday Evening Literature Discussion Group. Although it’s a joke and always has been, one member of the group got in trouble with his wife, who really believed it. She mentioned to a friend that her husband was at his discussion group and the friend (whose husband was there as well) cracked up laughing.
Sport fishing would be closer.
I attended The Church of the Perpetually Confused in a now-defunct diner on Sunday mornings. One old guy said as long as he could make casual mentions of “At church last Sunday…” it kept his daughter off his case.
On many college campuses I’ve been to, there is a bar called The Library, or some such.
There is (or was, some twenty-five years ago) one in Long Beach, CA, named The Branch Office.
Pretty sure I’ve also heard tell of one called “Isle of View.”
There was a bar near where I used to live called The Laundromat.
It’s a typical troll tactic to feign ignorance and demand that the victim do the troll’s homework for him/her. The troll hopes to break down the victim’s resistance by forcing the victim into tedious, ultimately useless busywork which won’t accomplish anything since it will be ignored.
That’s what CC appears to be doing in this thread.
Are reasons usually given for bannings? I ask because buddy here seems to have a five-post history that didn’t exactly strike me as, well, trollish.
Too…just dialing it in, then?
Not for socks. Or newbie trolls. If you see an insta-ban with no notification, it’s probably because of that. If enquiring minds need to know, you’re supposed to email a moderator.
We don’t announce bannings of spammers, socks, or short-term trolls. If you look at his final post, the answer should become obvious to you.
The SMDB supports only safe, sober-minded daving.
While I can’t find any right this second, I’ve definitely seen more trollish posts than that fifth one, by posters still around, but I guess if he/she more or less starts off on that foot - not too promising, perhaps.
I’m fairly certain that this is not the first time I’ve seen that question either, word for word, or close to it. I’ve been meaning to look for the other thread.
The word I would use in this case is “spammer”. Here sir or madame, please try this lovely game that I have found online. Just click here…
That’s clearly spam, not trolling. This guy did more work than most spammers by pretending to participate in threads, but his purpose became clear in that post.
Except the “pretending to participate in threads” is often quite blatant, so it’s often obvious when a spammer is just making a few innocuous posts before unleashing the spam. For example, that guy’s first post says, “looks good, i like those games”, second post, “i will lokking forward of it”, third post, “i like to play on this game”, fourth post, “tennis is quite interesting” followed by the final spammy post.
And all will be well in the garden.
That posting style seems like a slow-rolling version of the one-shot spamdrops I’ve seen on other forums, where there’s an inane almost-on-topic comment followed by an awkward segue to a spam link. All, composed in a manner that makes me think “English isn’t your native language, is it? Nor probably your second or third.”
Also, the specific spamtacular post is over 5 hours old at this moment, and although the spammer is banned, the spam post with spam link is still present. I just reported, but it seems odd for the mods to drop the ball that way. I mean, as long as the link is still there, ol’ Dave can rest assured thinking “mission accomplished” even if he got the ban-hammer.
I see that Dumbus Assius is at it again.
Someone’s been listening to too much Radiohead lately, methinks.
These people get on my fucking nerves. Go read Sartre and keep your misanthropic drivel to yourself. The disgraceful biological slavery of existence. Give me a fucking break.
And I like Sartre.