Omnibus Trolls R Us Thread

[octopus]

@running_coach

“When you get banned, The Right will disavow any knowledge of your actions.”

I am not one of you obsessed, stalker type nuts that keep files on other posters so if you don’t mind sharing the contents of your dossier that demonstrates his right wingery that’d be great. But, let’s say he is. So what? Of course so-called trolls come in all ideologies. You need me to explicitly state that? Would that make your day?

[BigT]

@Darren_Garrison

It is extremely common rhetoric for people to claim that people who disagree with them on-line to be strongly (and irrationally) emotional simply because they hold a different position. You should try to rise above that.

@Darren_Garrison

BTW, I used not one single obscenity towards either anyone involved in the protest or anyone in the thread–meanwhile, I was told:
AndThat you then characterize the thread as me “flipping out”, it says vastly more about you than it does about me.

Two things:

1. You didn’t merely state your opinion. You got indignant the second anyone said something negative about the kid–demanding people defend their negative statements. This occurred well before anyone got mad at you–from your first post in the thread.

2. You are using a common rhetorical tactic yourself. You’re overly focusing on two words I said rather than the bulk of my post, in an attempt to redirect the narrative to become about that. Even making two posts fits that–though I choose to believe you’re just so upset that you posted in a hurry and felt you had more to say.

My post stands: no one was actually doing any “lynch mob” stuff in that thread or making any “lynch mob” arguments. If you were arguing against the lynch mob, then your arguments were misplaced.

Edit:

@Darren_Garrison

I wear your scorn as a badge of total apathy.

And I will also add that stuff like this isn’t helping. You’re borrowing both positions and tactics from the right wingers on this board. When you’re on the same side as octopus or anomalous1, you need to take a step back.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

DNFTT! Why do we have to remind people of this so often in this thread?

[Lance_Turbo]

@octopus

However, libel and slander are actually an important exemption.

This particular case has nothing to do with slander or libel.

Smirky McDouchebag’s lawyers presented an argument for libel. The judge called bullshit.

[Lance_Turbo]

@Darren_Garrison

I wear your scorn as a badge of total apathy.

You are stupid so it comes as no surprise that you wear stupid things in stupid ways.

You fell for bullshit. You have a choice to stop falling for it, but you won’t.

[Czarcasm]

@Helmut_Doork

everyone = three people, two of which would have no clue about it (actors not on set). You know nothing about the art of making cinema. I was merely positing that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unpossible a scene shot by the second crew made its way onto the TV edit of a film, and a novice director not recalling that scene.

Funny you have to come here to rebut instead of there- we cant debate properly without working blue, is it? The cesspit, the last refuge of the dimwitted and linguistically challenged! No worries, I can do both.

You can do both? You are failing miserably there, so I have no doubt as to your ability to do the same here.

[octopus]

@Lance_Turbo

This particular case has nothing to do with slander or libel.

Smirky McDouchebag’s lawyers presented an argument for libel. The judge called bullshit.

Ok? What’s wrong with that?

I still don’t see what pleasure you derive from bullying teens. But you do you.

[QuickSilver]

@octopus

Ok? What’s wrong with that?

I still don’t see what pleasure you derive from bullying teens. But you do you.

Teen. Singular. This one specific douchebag. Who has it coming. Perhaps he’ll learn from this and be a better person for it. Or grow up to be the next Martin Shkreli. His choice.

[Lance_Turbo]

@octopus

Ok? What’s wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. An attack on the first amendment was thwarted. An effort to shut down discourse just because it someone found it disagreeable was stopped in it’s tracks.

This is something to be rejoiced. I started a thread about it. You should check it out.

[Darren_Garrison]

@BigT

Two things:

1. You didn’t merely state your opinion. You got indignant the second anyone said something negative about the kid–demanding people defend their negative statements. This occurred well before anyone got mad at you–from your first post in the thread.

Again you are projecting emotion on the text from me that you are reading on a screen–I am indignant, and I am demanding!, and I am upset! I am a spittle-flinging moron because I don’t agree with your opinion!
This is my first post on the thread–where do you see the “indignance?”

So how should the typical teenager react to a random stranger pushing up into their face while chanting and banging a drum?

@BigT

You’re overly focusing on two words I said rather than the bulk of my post

That is because most of your post is the same self-righteous, long-winded bloviating horseshit that you have to inject into every. damn. thing. in this whole site.

[Czarcasm]

@Helmut_Doork

Funny you have to come here to rebut instead of there- we cant debate properly without working blue, is it? The cesspit, the last refuge of the dimwitted and linguistically challenged! No worries, I can do both.

Thank you for showing us that it is possible to be dimwitted and linguistically challenged no matter what forum you post in. I beg y’all to go to the “Big” thread for lessons from The Big Doork on how NOT to debate.

[Chimera]

@anomalous1

Republicans: What things are like in reality.
Progressive Democrats: What things ought to be like in reality.

More like;

Republicans: What things are like in reality*

• Not real, actual reality, but the 60% false misinformation reality that we’ve created via Fox News, OANN and Breitbart.

Democrats: No.

[Slash1972]

@Czarcasm

Thank you for showing us that it is possible to be dimwitted and linguistically challenged no matter what forum you post in. I beg y’all to go to the “Big” thread for lessons from The Big Doork on how NOT to debate.

That thread is annoying me because it keeps popping as unread with NO new information

[Darren_Garrison]

Oddly, it looks like Ebert never reviewed Big.

[Helmut_Doork]

@Czarcasm

Thank you for showing us that it is possible to be dimwitted and linguistically challenged no matter what forum you post in. I beg y’all to go to the “Big” thread for lessons from The Big Doork on how NOT to debate.

It took you 46 minutes to come up with this gem? Why couldn’t you have dropped this bon mot in your response 46 minutes ago?

*L’esprit de l’escalier *indeed, but should be reserved for something witty at least:rolleyes:

Is this meant to supplant post #9939 or what exactly? Both equally senseless?

[Miller]

@Helmut_Doork

everyone = three people, two of which would have no clue about it (actors not on set).

By my count, there were a solid dozen people in that thread pointing out flaws in your arguments at the time you made this post. Closer to twenty now.

Literally nobody in there who thinks your arguments have any merit, though.

Also, just did a quick scroll through the other thread, and the only mention of the idea that an actor might remember this scene is in context of talking about the child actors who were in the scene, not the adult versions of those characters who would, of course, not been on set for shots set in the classroom.

You know nothing about the art of making cinema. I was merely positing that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unpossible a scene shot by the second crew made its way onto the TV edit of a film, and a novice director not recalling that scene.

So, I didn’t mention it the first time I saw you do it, because I figured you were making a Simpsons references, but now that you’ve done it twice, I have to ask:

Are you aware that “unpossible” is not a word?

Funny you have to come here to rebut instead of there- we cant debate properly without working blue, is it? The cesspit, the last refuge of the dimwitted and linguistically challenged! No worries, I can do both.

So far, you don’t seem to be able to do either.

[JohnT]

@Helmut_Doork

everyone = three people, two of which would have no clue about it (actors not on set). You know nothing about the art of making cinema. I was merely positing that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unpossible a scene shot by the second crew made its way onto the TV edit of a film, and a novice director not recalling that scene.

Funny you have to come here to rebut instead of there- we cant debate properly without working blue, is it? The cesspit, the last refuge of the dimwitted and linguistically challenged! No worries, I can do both.

LOL. You know nothing of the industry which is involved in making American films, but you do you with your font of ignorance.

[JohnT]

Doork got the “alternate ending to Big” thread close because asshole’s gotta asshole.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Darren_Garrison

Oddly, it looks like Ebert never reviewed Big.

I’m not sure about that. This year-old article from Vulture quotes Ebert’s review of the movie, although the article is more about the fact that Big was the fourth body-switching movie in less than a year, and yet it was more successful than the preceding ones.

Perhaps the short movie title causes problems when searching Ebert’s review database, much as how short searches on this website are also a problem?

[Darren_Garrison]

@Dewey_Finn

Perhaps the short movie title causes problems when searching Ebert’s review database, much as how short searches on this website are also a problem?

That was a search by Tom Hanks movies, not title.