A Guy wrote:

What, Fletch? I'm supposed to agree with everyone else?

I know better than to get into a "real" argument with you because it will only result in flaming. You only prove my point.

Kazoobie, by "animal rights", I meant the belief that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Perhaps my usage was a little off.

the problem is, a guy, that you have no point.

no you dont have to agree with everyone else, but if you disagree do people the common courtesy of explaining yourself, like i do for you, thats what people do in a "real" argument.
i dont know which is worse, my original theory that you deliberately posted that comment to incite argument, or the possibility that you really used the term "animal rights" to describe the belief that they have the same rights as humans, that seems so utterly ridiculous to me that its difficult to comprehend, but perhaps you were tired.

either way, your claims of being capable of a "real" argument, your original comment proves otherwise. a "real" argument provides reasoning, explanation elaboration. a real troll posts a statement that he may believe, but nonetheless that he knows will incited heated argument or flaming, and then doesnt back it up with any evidence or reasoning which he may or may not have.

heck i could bring up a crap load of instances in the past where you have argued in a manner which would not qualify as "real" or where you have made comments regarding me which whether you did it consciously or not, served no purpose other than to get me to respond aggressively. i could do all that, but i wont, its honestly not worth the effort

(he says after typing so much)

Wow, please forgive me for not using a wall of words whenever I wanted to argue in order to make myself feel important. However, I would not consider trolling and flaming the other side (which you have also continuously done in the past) to constitute a "real" argument, either - which makes you the pot calling the kettle black./ I believe you have also misused a word before...

in adelaide some losers with nothing better to do beat up a 70 (or was it 90?) yr old flamingo in a zoo, the oldest flamingo in captivity

i.e. know the basics of debating - don't just make a simple statement without evidence or reasoning

exactly, one line statements are fine in some topics, if its about "who's your favourite band" and you type "hooty and the blowfish" fine, itd be nice to hearwhat you like about them, but if you dont want to then fine...

in saying that, in a thread about "who's your favourite band" saying "hooty and the blowfish suck/are bad/arent all that good" especially right after someone said they like it is starting an argument in a very trollish sort of way unless you make it clear why "you" feel that way.

basically this whole hassle never would have happened if you had said "i dont believe in animal rights because [i dont belief an animal's life is equal to a human's] not only would i have seen it as something i could actually respond to, rather than be provoked by, but people might have figured out that you didnt mean "animal rights" but rather a definition of the term which you had come up with

What, Fletch? I'm supposed to agree with everyone else?

I know better than to get into a "real" argument with you because it will only result in flaming. You only prove my point.

Kazoobie, by "animal rights", I meant the belief that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Perhaps my usage was a little off.

the problem is, a guy, that you have no point.

no you dont have to agree with everyone else, but if you disagree do people the common courtesy of explaining yourself, like i do for you, thats what people do in a "real" argument.

i dont know which is worse, my original theory that you deliberately posted that comment to incite argument, or the possibility that you really used the term "animal rights" to describe the belief that they have the same rights as humans, that seems so utterly ridiculous to me that its difficult to comprehend, but perhaps you were tired.

either way, your claims of being capable of a "real" argument, your original comment proves otherwise. a "real" argument provides reasoning, explanation elaboration. a real troll posts a statement that he may believe, but nonetheless that he knows will incited heated argument or flaming, and then doesnt back it up with any evidence or reasoning which he may or may not have.

heck i could bring up a crap load of instances in the past where you have argued in a manner which would not qualify as "real" or where you have made comments regarding me which whether you did it consciously or not, served no purpose other than to get me to respond aggressively. i could do all that, but i wont, its honestly not worth the effort

(he says after typing so much)

I know better than to get into a "real" argument with you because it will only result in flaming. You only prove my point.

Kazoobie, by "animal rights", I meant the belief that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Perhaps my usage was a little off.

I'm not here to judge you, A Guy, so I don't care if you think animals are meaningless and it doesn't matter what happens to them. I will find it sad, but I won't judge you. It's being a bit hypocritical since I get judged on a lot by people who think a "vegetarian" are the sorts of vegetarians South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, etc. makes fun of. I'm just saying, if you do believe there should be some sort of punishment for needlessly torturing a puppy, then that means you do believe in animal rights, so your statement is flawed.

Aicebo wrote:

A Guy wrote:

Seemed to me like he wanted a reaction out of me...

Well, now you know how I feel. 

I used jokes that were meant to be taken innocently.

Fletch is daring me to respond.

However, I'll just wait till a more obvious trolling attempt from him comes along.

"I don't believe in animal rights"

in a thread about the torture and death of an animal that the majority of people agreed was sick disgustingand many other adjectives which i would love to put more colourful language in front of

and you actually try to say "I" was trolling

and my response to it was truthful, in my eyes you have done the same thing in the past, you seemed to do it even more so after you made your "im not getting in arguments anymore" thread, the only difference being that you would make the provocative comment, and then state that you werent going to argue about it, then sit back and watch whatever happens

heck, in a thred about people loving jesus, you typed something like "fletch should be here any moment" as if im anti-religious, yes i disagree with a number of things that christianity preaches, but last i checked, loving jesus never did anyone any harm

so how about next time, "you" watch "your" step, and take the time to write what you actually mean, so it doesnt get taken as trolling, unless of course you actually do not believe that animals have any rights whatsoever and that people should have the right to torture and kill any living thing provided its not human

@stormy, that was in response to a guys "threat" yes it was rude, it was meant to be, if someone tells me to watch my step or watch myself then i am going to react, since it was online where his threats are inevitably empty i made that remark. for the record getting reported for trolling isnt overly threatening, doesnt mean i want it to happen but the way he said it made it sound like it would be followed by "i know where you live and i know a guy who knows a guy whose gonna beat you up"

you sound like an 8 year old playing online multiplayer games

I happen to agree with A_Guy that that particular statement sounds rude. Watch it, Fletch; I know you have a tendency to do that.

A Guy wrote:

Aicebo wrote:

Doesn't seem like trolling to me.
It's not like he's insulting, he just seems to be proving his points.

Seemed to me like he wanted a reaction out of me...

Well, now you know how I feel. 

I used jokes that were meant to be taken innocently.

Fletch is daring me to respond.

However, I'll just wait till a more obvious trolling attempt from him comes along.

Aicebo wrote:

Doesn't seem like trolling to me.
It's not like he's insulting, he just seems to be proving his points.

Seemed to me like he wanted a reaction out of me...

Well, now you know how I feel. 

Doesn't seem like trolling to me.
It's not like he's insulting, he just seems to be proving his points.

Seemed to me like he wanted a reaction out of me...