skinz Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Are you suggesting somebody is a troll without providing any evidence? 3 smithy's on one troll thread?...you've provided it yourself son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinzwind Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) 3 smithy's on one troll thread?...you've provided it yourself son. What are you even talking about? If you have any evidence that there are 3 smithy's posting in this thread then lets see it. Otherwise you are just spewing fud (otherwise known as disinformation). Edited March 23, 2015 by rinzwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 What are you even talking about? Troll characteristic, feign surprise. At least you're repetitively consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinzwind Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) At least you're repetitively consistent. No I am not consistently "feigning surprise." Again what are you talking about? Nobody in this thread has the username "Smithy." If you know different then please share with us what that is. Don't simply assume everybody knows the same things as you. You are ignoring my relevant question and simply repeating your unfounded assertion. Personally I think you're just blindly accusing somebody of having multiple accounts without anything to back it up. I don't think you have any proof and it leads me to question your motives. Do you have any proof of any of the things you are saying skinz? Yes or no? Edited March 23, 2015 by rinzwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 No I am not consistently "feigning surprise." Again what are you talking about? Nobody in this thread has the username "Smithy." If you know different then please share with us what that is. Don't simply assume everybody knows the same things as you. Personally I think you're just blindly accusing ...somebody.. of having multiple accounts without anything to back it up. I don't think you have any proof and it leads me to question your motives. Do you have any proof of any of the things you are saying skinz? Yes or no? Proof?, not really, it's all anecdotal. I believe lora and lucy are one in the same, you obviously don't, then again you too could be lora or lucy, or likely both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Don't you know there are a total of three people who post on here total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 No I am not consistently "feigning surprise." Again what are you talking about? Nobody in this thread has the username "Smithy." If you know different then please share with us what that is. Don't simply assume everybody knows the same things as you. You are ignoring my relevant question and simply repeating your unfounded assertion. Personally I think you're just blindly accusing somebody of having multiple accounts without anything to back it up. I don't think you have any proof and it leads me to question your motives. Do you have any proof of any of the things you are saying skinz? Yes or no? It's the new user who pops up and immediately launches into lengthy, argumentative debate, particularly if they have to twist words or misinterpret clear posts that people suspect they know who they are. Often these people post for a few months, then disappear, and soon after another similar user joins the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinzwind Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Proof?, not really, it's all anecdotal. I believe lora and lucy are one in the same, you obviously don't, then again you too could be lora or lucy, or likely both. If you can't prove anything then you are simply a liar and a disinformation agent trying to sidetrack this thread. Edited March 23, 2015 by rinzwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 This just popped in my feed and is highly relevant to this thread. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-23/propagandists-use-automated-software-spread-disinformation Note the article states that in 2013, the American Congress repealed the formal ban against the deployment of propaganda against U.S. citizens living on American soil. Thus thoroughly debunking cyclones straw man argument. Are you still confused about what a straw man argument is? To straw man I'd have to pretend that you said something or made some point, in order to then disprove that point, and thus strengthen my position. But since I merely quoted a link that you yourself had provided, that isn't even close to straw manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinzwind Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) It's the new user who pops up and immediately launches into lengthy, argumentative debate, particularly if they have to twist words or misinterpret clear posts that people suspect they know who they are. Often these people post for a few months, then disappear, and soon after another similar user joins the forum. Are you sure your not describing the results of technique 24 as Loraward already pointed out. You've some need to talk anyway cyclone. Your posts are textbook examples of disinformation strategies as I have repeatedly demonstrated. ---------- Post added 23-03-2015 at 15:38 ---------- Are you still confused about what a straw man argument is? To straw man I'd have to pretend that you said something or made some point, in order to then disprove that point, and thus strengthen my position. But since I merely quoted a link that you yourself had provided, that isn't even close to straw manning. You don't know what you are talking about. Suggesting there aren't government trolls because the software wasn't yet developed was your straw man. I'll admit it was a pretty lame straw man but nobody used the term incorrectly as you full well know. Likewise with your claim that they couldn't be trolling because it would be unlawful. You are now just trying to imply that you aren't as obvious as I have shown you to be. I posted a pretty good definition in the very same post. People can see for themselves exactly what you tried to do. Here it is again with the things you did highlighted... Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Edited March 23, 2015 by rinzwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now