Jump to content

Thais advised to be wary of Cambodian 'fake Buddha'


webfact

Recommended Posts

Rametindallas,

 

You just gave yourself away, by using the expression "red trolls".

If you are so broad minded and accepting what others believe, why did you not say "red believers" in stead of "red trolls"?

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

 

 

There is clearly, in my mind at least, a huge difference between 'true believers' and 'trolls' on this forum. I acknowledge there are posters on here who are genuine supporters of the UDD and I respect, and can sympathize with, their feelings. In many cases, I can make their argument better than they can. They have valid points of view. I was referring to the Red Trolls whom I don't consider to be genuine in their support because they use 'troll-speak'. They either won't respond or won't respond with rational arguments to support their trollish contentions. I wrote in my earlier post (which you decided not to include in your response to it) that it is a waste of time to introduce demonstrable facts to convince them their contentions are wrong. Some members believe that some of these trolls are hired to disrupt the forum intentionally. I have no proof of that. It is entirely within the spectrum of human nature that some people are argumentative for argument's sake and that some are psychologically driven to trollish behavior. Maybe you don't 'believe' there are such things as Internet Trolls. I would refer you to this article if you don't believe Internet Trolls exist. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

Why should I think you were? Have I made any reference that you are a Thaksin supporter?

Straw man argument, much?

BTW, I don't hate Dr. Thaksin. In fact I am on friendly terms with him. I just see him for what he is (IMO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Rametindallas,

 

You just gave yourself away, by using the expression "red trolls".

If you are so broad minded and accepting what others believe, why did you not say "red believers" in stead of "red trolls"?

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

 

 

There is clearly, in my mind at least, a huge difference between 'true believers' and 'trolls' on this forum. I acknowledge there are posters on here who are genuine supporters of the UDD and I respect, and can sympathize with, their feelings. In many cases, I can make their argument better than they can. They have valid points of view. I was referring to the Red Trolls whom I don't consider to be genuine in their support because they use 'troll-speak'. They either won't respond or won't respond with rational arguments to support their trollish contentions. I wrote in my earlier post (which you decided not to include in your response to it) that it is a waste of time to introduce demonstrable facts to convince them their contentions are wrong. Some members believe that some of these trolls are hired to disrupt the forum intentionally. I have no proof of that. It is entirely within the spectrum of human nature that some people are argumentative for argument's sake and that some are psychologically driven to trollish behavior. Maybe you don't 'believe' there are such things as Internet Trolls. I would refer you to this article if you don't believe Internet Trolls exist. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

Why should I think you were? Have I made any reference that you are a Thaksin supporter?

Straw man argument, much?

BTW, I don't hate Dr. Thaksin. In fact I am on friendly terms with him. I just see him for what he is (IMO).

 

Talk about "argumentative"!

 

- I did not quote your earlier posts, NOT because "I decided not to", but because there is a TV limit in quotes.

 

- ? Some red posters are genuine ?, so most are not, and on top of that, the genuine ones are stupid?

 

- You admit not having proof these reds are trolls and even paid disrupters, but you quote the opinion, CLEVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Rametindallas,

 

You just gave yourself away, by using the expression "red trolls".

If you are so broad minded and accepting what others believe, why did you not say "red believers" in stead of "red trolls"?

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

 

 

There is clearly, in my mind at least, a huge difference between 'true believers' and 'trolls' on this forum. I acknowledge there are posters on here who are genuine supporters of the UDD and I respect, and can sympathize with, their feelings. In many cases, I can make their argument better than they can. They have valid points of view. I was referring to the Red Trolls whom I don't consider to be genuine in their support because they use 'troll-speak'. They either won't respond or won't respond with rational arguments to support their trollish contentions. I wrote in my earlier post (which you decided not to include in your response to it) that it is a waste of time to introduce demonstrable facts to convince them their contentions are wrong. Some members believe that some of these trolls are hired to disrupt the forum intentionally. I have no proof of that. It is entirely within the spectrum of human nature that some people are argumentative for argument's sake and that some are psychologically driven to trollish behavior. Maybe you don't 'believe' there are such things as Internet Trolls. I would refer you to this article if you don't believe Internet Trolls exist. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

Why should I think you were? Have I made any reference that you are a Thaksin supporter?

Straw man argument, much?

BTW, I don't hate Dr. Thaksin. In fact I am on friendly terms with him. I just see him for what he is (IMO).

 

Talk about "argumentative"!

 

- I did not quote your earlier posts, NOT because "I decided not to", but because there is a TV limit in quotes.

 

- ? Some red posters are genuine ?, so most are not, and on top of that, the genuine ones are stupid?

 

- You admit not having proof these reds are trolls and even paid disrupters, but you quote the opinion, CLEVER!

 

Talk about "argumentative"!

You are the one attacking/accusing me! Otherwise I would not feel the need to defend my position.

 

- I did not quote your earlier posts, NOT because "I decided not to", but because there is a TV limit in quotes.

Your profile says you have been a member since 2009 and you don't know how to delete non-pertinent posts? Why couldn't you have cut and pasted my response into your post? You lose credibility with every statement you make.

 

- ? Some red posters are genuine ?, so most are not, and on top of that, the genuine ones are stupid?

'Some' is a neutral term; an unknown quantity. It connotes neither majority nor minority. You choose to define it is a minority which, on the face of it, is a dishonest interpretation of what I wrote. Where in my post did I even hint that genuine supporters of the UDD were 'stupid'? On the contrary, to quote myself, "I acknowledge there are posters on here who are genuine supporters of the UDD and I respect, and can sympathize with, their feelings." It is incredibly dishonest of you to interpret that statement to mean that I called them stupid.

 

- You admit not having proof these reds are trolls and even paid disrupters, but you quote the opinion, CLEVER

Yes, I agree with you that I, unlike yourself, am clever enough not to write indefensible statements.

Your weak attempts to discredit me, for whatever purpose, are growing tiresome. I will not be reading your next futile attempt as I am putting you on my 'ignore' list. I notice you are giving other posters a hard time, also, so you will have plenty of opportunity to 'get your jollies' being argumentative and accusatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Cutting and pasting, member since 2008.

     I have a life outside TV

 

- You say about genuine red posters that you "can make their argument better than they can".

     That means you concider them to be stupid.

 

- My "weak attempts to discredit you"

     I do indeed try to discredit your OPINIONS, but why would I want to discredit YOU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Rametindallas,

 

You just gave yourself away, by using the expression "red trolls".

If you are so broad minded and accepting what others believe, why did you not say "red believers" in stead of "red trolls"?

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

 

 

There is clearly, in my mind at least, a huge difference between 'true believers' and 'trolls' on this forum. I acknowledge there are posters on here who are genuine supporters of the UDD and I respect, and can sympathize with, their feelings. In many cases, I can make their argument better than they can. They have valid points of view. I was referring to the Red Trolls whom I don't consider to be genuine in their support because they use 'troll-speak'. They either won't respond or won't respond with rational arguments to support their trollish contentions. I wrote in my earlier post (which you decided not to include in your response to it) that it is a waste of time to introduce demonstrable facts to convince them their contentions are wrong. Some members believe that some of these trolls are hired to disrupt the forum intentionally. I have no proof of that. It is entirely within the spectrum of human nature that some people are argumentative for argument's sake and that some are psychologically driven to trollish behavior. Maybe you don't 'believe' there are such things as Internet Trolls. I would refer you to this article if you don't believe Internet Trolls exist. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll

 

And no, I am not a follower of the man that you love to hate.

Why should I think you were? Have I made any reference that you are a Thaksin supporter?

Straw man argument, much?

BTW, I don't hate Dr. Thaksin. In fact I am on friendly terms with him. I just see him for what he is (IMO).

 

Talk about "argumentative"!

 

- I did not quote your earlier posts, NOT because "I decided not to", but because there is a TV limit in quotes.

 

- ? Some red posters are genuine ?, so most are not, and on top of that, the genuine ones are stupid?

 

- You admit not having proof these reds are trolls and even paid disrupters, but you quote the opinion, CLEVER!

 

How did the red/yellow war get into a topic about a monk in Cambodia?  Is this all Thaksins doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a curse, "Thaksin's Curse".

Happens in just about every thread.

Most ennoying.

 

In this case: Somebody was saying that some other posters never listen to facts, which is a valid observation, and then compared that to "the red trolls".

Totally off topic, and uncalled for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...