Yeah I can’t even blame that on a typo. I just wasn’t thinking.
Dyed in the wool
I don’t much care, either, but what I will say is that there was no hope of that poster ever becoming a useful poster in the sense of being in any way rational or fact-based or even coherent, and was therefore not the sort of contrarian with whom one could engage in good-faith debate. He was just an outright loon whose basic theme towards the end was “I’m not going to waste my time debating idiots” and “you libtards will all find out The Truth before long”. I’m not privy to why he was banned but the combination of delusion, intransigence, and hostility made it pretty clear he had no productive future here.
This is actually a very common tactic on Fox News. When even Fox can’t distort the facts enough to be favourable to their Republican masters, their usual strategy is to report what some Republican lunatic is saying about the particular news item, which is invariably a horribly distorted spin on the actual facts. But hey, Fox News is accurately reporting what the lunatic said. The actual facts are left unsaid, and then further distorted in the many “opinion” venues that dominate the network…
Labeled as a sock, though, right? So trolling or not trolling isn’t an important banning distinction.
No, there were a couple of recent bannings. One was a sock, but the one in question here (the dolphin one apparently representing Qanon) just says “banned”. But as I said, I don’t really care about the reason as I think it was justified. In no way do I think anyone should be banned just for having strong opinions that most of us disagree with, unless they’re blatantly racist or hateful, but that poster was completely unhinged.
I’m likely in error, then. They’ve been thick on the ground of late.
My instinct when they first appeared (as I posted here) was that they were a sock based on the way they hit the ground running.
I’m not sure if that was correct but the signs were there.
Hey! I’m not sad!
Aspenglow’s mod note is why I kept my damn mouth shut.
That’s us - demented and sad, but social.
Pretty sure the guy who’s really interested in tall women with shorter men is either a troll or a recurring annoyance. The vibe I’m getting from him just isn’t that wholesome.
Yeah, his persistent questions are a little offputting.
Also, I don’t trust anyone who uses “females” when talking about women - it’s somewhat creepy and I always hear it with a Ferengi accent (“HYOO-MON FEE-MALES”).
They’ve only been lurking without posting for 10 months, neither reading nor posting until just now. What’s suspicious about that? They couldn’t possibly be the next sock in the drawer for whoever just got banned.
Meh. He’s just BentOdd.
Just wait until he starts quoting the Rules of Acquisition.
Who is this guy? Post 73, “If there were a White Caucasion Heritage Month”, IMHO.
Profile says their name is Darla. I’m sure they just happened across that 6 year old thread and felt the need to discuss it. It fits so well with their claim of “not discussing politics online or in person”.
Darla! She exists to poke you.
Unlikely to have happened across that particular thread, since there are gazillions of other “why no white history month” articles with better Google rankings.
I don’t think there’s enough to warrant any hasty conclusions on Troll vs. legit new member. But I also wouldn’t reply to that zombiethread.
~Max
The new ones are always so enthusiastically argumentative, even when they have nothing to say (RoxLux, “Inclusive Language Guide” in IMHO).
I blame tribalism – the urge to prove yourself to your new tribe. 
RoxLux appears to be a genuine new member that found us through the columns. Please play nice and remember that Cecil wasn’t exactly the least argumentative columnist in print. I myself first thought, and Cecil in his parting note advertised this place as, a place for rational arguments on any subject.
Until demonstrated otherwise, I think not a troll.
~Max
Fair comment. I wasn’t suggesting “troll” at all, just enthusiastically argumentative. I quit arguing with him when I got the impression that the back-and-forth could go on all night, and that his most recent arguments weren’t particularly cogent. I really have no problem with this new join and my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, though I was getting a little frustrated. 