It’s his modus operandi.
I really don’t understand why, on a site like this one, someone would choose to highlight their own stupidity, but apparently doorhinge gets some kind of bizarre gratification out of it.
It’s his modus operandi.
I really don’t understand why, on a site like this one, someone would choose to highlight their own stupidity, but apparently doorhinge gets some kind of pathetic gratification out of it.
I think I agree with you now, *Colibri. So…why hasn’t doorhinge been banned yet?
There are different kinds of trolling.
- The Rabid Flamer
- The Priggish Grammar Troll
- The Crybaby
- The Never-Give-Up, Never-Surrender Troll
…
… - The Stalker
The mods haven’t decided which class he fits in yet, and they have to enter that class on the certificate of live banning.
Perhaps some members can help if they went here…
http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls
where all 18 types of internet trolls are defined, then return and vote.
Personally, I vote #7.
I think he’s more like #4.
Just for completeness.
Flame Warriors.
#4 and #7 fit - of course, in doorhinge case - hes the ‘what’s wrong on the internet’.
[quote=“doorhinge, post:348, topic:754219”]
HELP ! I’m being repressed !
Come see the violence inherent in the system.
[/QUOTE]I’m guessing you see yourself as the defender of the faith, or women, or whatever. That Monty Python clip is a great link–too bad their wit exceeds your own.
Because banning someone for trolling requires a consensus among the entire moderation staff, not just the opinion of one member of it.
Who’s the hold-out?
Because a certain degree of trolling, like a certain degree of insulting, is permitted in the Pit.
A certain degree? ISTM the OP has a fever here.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a clone of the police-shooting threads?
“If I feel threatened, I will shoot you.”
But it’s a kid! 1/2 a mile away! With a toy light sabre!
“It’s self defence! There is no other option!”
In elections he isn’t quite this bad.
doorhinge is also the beneficiary of this board’s longstanding affirmative action program for conservatives, something I support 200% with an undisclosed degree of irony.
More seriously, if you had dealt with him before you could have extrapolated his past kneejerk behavior. He isn’t the smoothest or most functional hinge in the building.
That makes him an imbecile (or possibly an idiot) below the flying moron.
Reminds me of the gem of a question the late comedian Bill Hicks related in his act: **‘Hey, whatcha readin’ for?’
**
[QUOTE=Bill Hicks]
“I was in Nashville, Tennessee last year. After the show I went to a Waffle House. I’m not proud of it, I was hungry. And I’m alone, I’m eating and I’m reading a book, right?
Waitress walks over to me: ‘Hey, whatcha readin’ for?’ Isn’t that the weirdest fuckin’ question you’ve ever heard?
Not what am I reading, but what am I reading FOR? Well, goddamnit, ya stumped me!
Why do I read? Well . . . hmmm…I dunno…I guess I read for a lot of reasons and the main one is so I don’t end up being a fuckin’ waffle waitress.”
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen polls that show Donald Trump has the support of 97% of all waffle waitresses (+/- 3%).
You haven’t been able to so far. You only seem capable of attacking an untrained woman who was travelling alone and who followed Obama’s DHS suggestion that people who see something should say something. She saw something so she said something. How dare she!
This is not the first plane that has returned to the gate because of a passenger’s suspicion. It’s not going to be the last. I assume ISIS, and the other terrorist organizations, welcome any attempts by Groupthink to undermine the anti-terrorist efforts of government agencies and concerned citizens. They’ll probably erect a plaster statue in your honor.
Check your diary. How many troll points have you been awarded to date? How many do you expect to be awarded in the future?
You found that writing math is dangerous. You seem to have an unusually paranoiac view of education.
If things were different, things would be different. In this particular case, a woman saw/heard something suspicious so she reported it to the aircrew. Which is what Obama’s DHS has suggested she, and all other passengers do.
It should be understood that mistakes will happen. False reports will be made. Passengers will face delays. But the other option is to see nothing, say nothing, do nothing.
You’re adding the option of attacking a woman for daring to speak out. You don’t need all the facts or to hear all sides of the incident. That’s your choice. Considering that we’re talking about acts of terrorism and the possibility of death or dismemberment, why would anyone want to stop the public from speaking out?
No, I haven’t found that to be true nor have I said that. Thanks for playing.