NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the warning FreedomandGlory received here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12825562&postcount=11) after being told to Stop posting outrageous opinions that 99.95% of the rest of the world would find offensive and pretending you believe them.

it appears he's at it again, this time, arguing that the lesson from Watergate is that Congress should just leave the president alone (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531542). Specifically:

As you may recall, power-hungry demagogues who disregarded the Constitution by shamelessly attacking and subduing a critical part of our government: the executive branch. President Nixon suffered at the hands of these fiends, driven by blood-lust, who cared nothing for the Constitution. They curtailed the power of Nixon's lofty office by ordering him to produce confidential tapes which recorded several of his private conversations. He, like any good American, refused to turn them over

I would think that arguing that the lesson to be learned from Watergate is that the office of the President should be left alone and allowed to have whatever secrets it wants is pretty much squarely in that realm of lunacy that nobody really believes.

So in light of recent comments by Fris, I thought this worth pointing out.

and of course, the oh so predicable "I swear to god I'm not a troll and I really mean it!" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829519&postcount=8) response

Isn't the true trolling that he has repeatedly said that the only options are to have his opinion or to be a "mindless, left-wing drone"? It's one of the many times that he's stated that anyone left of him is mindless. He's also said that anyone attacking his views are attacking the rightwing. He strikes that iron from both sides.

and of course, the oh so predicable "I swear to god I'm not a troll and I really mean it!" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829519&postcount=8) response

Maybe I wouldn't have to respond that way if you actually addressed my points instead of posting inconsequential spam. I did not seek to offend anyone and the moderators have been much more lenient with using offensive terms in the original post, even allowing curse words such as "shit-ead."

It's one of the many times that he's stated that anyone left of him is mindless.

No, you're not a mindless drone because you are actually left-wing, but I'd be if I was coerced into adopting a different political stance by those in power, contrary to my wishes.

oh what a shock, you're here so soon. What, did you make your post then immediatly rush off to moderation to see if you got reported yet? The schtick does wear thin. Though usually most trolls after getting smacked around by moderation lay low for a while then slowly build back up to their old levels of nonsense hoping by then to be forgotten.

You're the first I've seen (well, maybe second after Cluichistan) to dive head first into the deep end so quickly like that.

Maybe I wouldn't have to respond that way if you actually addressed my points instead of posting inconsequential spam. I did not seek to offend anyone and the moderators have been much more lenient with using offensive terms in the original post, even allowing curse words such as "shit-ead."

See, this is what he's talking about. You make these giant leaps. Incredible leaps. That no reasonable person would be expected to make. What does cursing have to do with the post you are replying to?

Amusingly, the leaps of which I speak, you admit to, which means you and I both know they're absurd and are going to get reactions. Hmmmm... I wonder what kind of reaction one expects?

Maybe I wouldn't have to respond that way if you actually addressed my points instead of posting inconsequential spam.

I'll let Fris handle this one yet again:

Stop demanding that we should engage you in "honest debate" over points that are essentially undebatable, that are based on fallacies, that fail to meet the test of what most of us consider basic human behavior.

I'll let Fris handle this one yet again:

What are you talking about? There is a huge debate over the extent of executive privilege in the real world. In case you haven't noticed, the administration wants to keep the contents of certain conversations secret whereas the Democrat-controlled Congress wishes to force them into divulging what transpired.

What are you talking about? There is a huge debate over the extent of executive privilege in the real world. In case you haven't noticed, the administration wants to keep the contents of certain conversations secret whereas the Democrat-controlled Congress wishes to force them into divulging what transpired.

Um, I really think you should avoid bringing the debate here. Suffice it to say, that you're intentionally being INCREDIBLY selective in your choosing, choosing one of the clearest examples of corruption in history. It's not coincidence.

When I grow up, I want to be a troll!

What does cursing have to do with the post you are replying to?

If the moderators allowed referring to certain people whom original posters disliked as "shit-eads," then the term "ravenous vultures" must also be deemed acceptable. I assumed he found my post offensive because I used such terms; however, when I inquired in this forum a while ago about the type of language that is allowed in original posts, I was told that it was fine to use pejorative terms.

you and I both know they're absurd

No, they are most certainly not absurd. They are out of the mainstream, certainly, but less so than the ideas of the communists on this forum.

Um, I really think you should avoid bringing the debate here. Suffice it to say, that you're intentionally being INCREDIBLY selective in your choosing, choosing one of the clearest examples of corruption in history. It's not coincidence.

Actually, I don't know many other examples of a big debate over executive privilege. In fact, I don't know a single other time when such an issue was raised (after the Civil War). That's why I used Watergate. If you can point to another such instance, go ahead. Without poring over a history book, however, I'd be unable to do so.

If the moderators allowed referring to certain people whom original posters disliked as "shit-eads," then the term "ravenous vultures" must also be deemed acceptable. I assumed he found my post offensive because I used such terms; however, when I inquired in this forum a while ago about the type of language that is allowed in original posts, I was told that it was fine to use pejorative terms.

He told you why he was posting it. Perhaps you should read what he wrote instead of make things up. It's these leaps that make you seem like a troll. What he said was the reason for posting the post you replied to was that you essentially admitted that you knew you'd been directed by the mods but that you weren't going to listen. Cursing has nothing to do with it. But you knew that, didn't you? We both know you did.


No, they are most certainly not absurd. They are out of the mainstream, certainly, but less so than the ideas of the communists on this forum.

I'm talking about the giant leaps in logic. You're famous forum. You do them on purpose. And in the last moderation thread you admitted that you recognized the leap.

What Fris asked was that you recognize that no one is taking you seriously, because we all recognize what you recognize, that you're not in the slightest attempting to be taken seriously. You take so much care in your posts yet we're supposed to believe that you don't notice that absolutely absurd leaps that have been so common for you AND your previous incarnations.

Oh, yes, I know, you've got no previous incarnations. Just another reason nobody takes you seriously. You've reached well beyond the reasonable doubt phase, my friend.

Come on, you're intelligent. You may even hold those views. But no one, no one believes, not even you, that the chasms of logic you leap across is not going to be noticed. And you've admitted it. So either, you are trying to get people riled because you like the attention. Or you're trying to insert flaws into your argument because you want to make the beliefs you're claiming look silly. Either way, it makes you a troll.

The solution is, take it seriously, and so will everyone else. We're willing to let you fix it and the mods have given you the opportunity. You can go that way, or you can go the other way. The other way is far less pleasant.

Actually, I don't know many other examples of a big debate over executive privilege. In fact, I don't know a single other time when such an issue was raised (after the Civil War). That's why I used Watergate. If you can point to another such instance, go ahead. Without poring over a history book, however, I'd be unable to do so.

Um, you listed one, my friend. I can list another if you like that happen in the last decade. Hmmmm... what was the name of that guy?

Um, you listed one, my friend. I can list another if you like that happen in the last decade. Hmmmm... what was the name of that guy?

Are you talking about the Lewinsky scandal? I might have used it, but protecting privileged information issued by advisers is not the same thing as having extramarital sex with a young woman.

Are you talking about the Lewinsky scandal? I might have used it, but protecting privileged information issued by advisers is not the same thing as having extramarital sex with a young woman.

Since this is your attempt at this absurd debate, I'll continue it there. Again, suffice it say, that yes, if you truely are claiming you don't notice the leap here, that you're trolling.

He told you why he was posting it. Perhaps you should read what he wrote instead of make things up. It's these leaps that make you seem like a troll.

He claimed that only a lunatic would believe my stance. Of course, he did not offer any supportive facts to strengthen this thesis but rather relied on the theory that the rest of the world conforms with his political views enough to deem my ideas as crazy. Now, that's what I'd consider trolling: reporting a thread to a moderator because one cannot grasp the point or has such an over-inflated ego that he feels he can unilaterally call it insane without even bothering to debate why he feels this way and without substantiating his position whatsoever.

I'm talking about the giant leaps

Yeah, apparently I'm a bullfrog or something. I strived to present my position without any such "leaps," actually; with overly flamboyant language, perhaps, but not with any substantial fallacies.

What Fris asked was that you recognize that no one is taking you seriously, because we all recognize what you recognize, that you're not in the slightest attempting to be taken seriously.

So I should abandon my views because the members of this forum do not agree with them? One can argue that a critical point of this forum is to help one develop more coherent and advanced political thought by reading and taking into account the opinions of posters who differ ideologically from one and considering their stance. It is not to run crying to the moderators when somebody posts an idea which is radically divergent from your own.

Since this is your attempt at this absurd debate, I'll continue it there. Again, suffice it say, that yes, if you truely are claiming you don't notice the leap here, that you're trolling.

What leap are you talking about? I have no clue what you meant by "that guy" if you weren't referring to Bill Clinton. Perhaps that leap wouldn't be necessary if you were a bit more specific.

What leap are you talking about? I have no clue what you meant by "that guy" if you weren't referring to Bill Clinton. Perhaps that leap wouldn't be necessary if you were a bit more specific.

Dude, take you debate to the debate thread. Seriously, what is complicated about this. I replied to your debate comments from here, in there, just like I said I would. I will not debate with you here, no matter how much you beg.

He claimed that only a lunatic would believe my stance. Of course, he did not offer any supportive facts to strengthen this thesis but rather relied on the theory that the rest of the world conforms with his political views enough to deem my ideas as crazy. Now, that's what I'd consider trolling: reporting a thread to a moderator because one cannot grasp the point or has such an over-inflated ego that he feels he can unilaterally call it insane without even bothering to debate why he feels this way and without substantiating his position whatsoever.



Yeah, apparently I'm a bullfrog or something. I strived to present my position without any such "leaps," actually; with overly flamboyant language, perhaps, but not with any substantial fallacies.



So I should abandon my views because the members of this forum do not agree with them? One can argue that a critical point of this forum is to help one develop more coherent and advanced political thought by reading and taking into account the opinions of posters who differ ideologically from one and considering their stance. It is not to run crying to the moderators when somebody posts an idea which is radically divergent from your own.

I don't know if you're doing it on purpose or what, but I keep telling you it's how you present your views that are the problem and you keep acting like it's the specific view. It's the fact that your reply is almost NEVER an actual reply to what's said that makes people think you're a troll. And it's the additional fact that you are pretending not to be who we know you are that makes us KNOW it.

Dude, take you debate to the debate thread. Seriously, what is complicated about this. I replied to your debate comments from here, in there, just like I said I would. I will not debate with you here, no matter how much you beg.

Sorry, you should have been more clear. I did respond to your post there. Really, though, saying, "since this is your attempt at this absurd debate, I'll continue it there" without qualifying the word "there" in any way, it's hard to decipher what you mean.

And it's the additional fact that you are pretending not to be who we know you are that makes us KNOW it.

If you knew who I was, I'd be looking over my shoulder constantly. Luckily, neither you nor any other poster know my identity. Unless, of course, you're referring to that whole "you're MTaE" thing. That's getting old, really.

For example, consider the following post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829886&postcount=22

Nobody ever picks on such an outrageous, illogical, hurtful, and downright false post. Why? Because it conforms to the predominant left-wing mood on this forum. I, on the other hand, strive to present my argument in a coherent and thorough way, and somebody instantly goes running to the moderators about it.

For example, consider the following post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829886&postcount=22

Nobody ever picks on such an outrageous, illogical, hurtful, and downright false post. Why? Because it conforms to the predominant left-wing mood on this forum. I, on the other hand, strive to present my argument in a coherent and thorough way, and somebody instantly goes running to the moderators about it.

Actually, I came here to post it. It's flaming and deserves to be handled. It has nothing to do with debate and that's why it's being ignored.

Or maybe it's a vast conspiracy... woooooooooo, be very afraid.

may I suggest to both F&G and Jocabia to leave the 'debating' to General and let the Mod's decide.

Out of curiosity - are you folks still laboring under the illusion that this is the General forum?

EDIT: Yeah, JuNii seemed to have the same idea. Honestly now.

Nobody ever picks on such an outrageous, illogical, hurtful, and downright false post.

It's only false if you don't believe the things you say.

Since I've already essentially ruled on this one via another thread (Freedom and Glory is trolling, yes he is), I'll leave the actual call in this case to another mod, just for preserving the image that we're fair and unbiased.

In the meantime, knock it off, dammit! Go back to General and quit bringing the debate to Moderation.

Thread locked until someone else can sneak a peek at it.

Actually... it's a legit topic of debate. It's a strident position to take, but I don't think that simply feeling that Nixon got a raw deal is whacko enough to rise to the level of trolling. Most people, especially on our forums, may feel that Nixon far overstepped his bounds, but stating that he shouldn't have had to hand over his tapes isn't an extreme position. Stating that the Watergate break-in was acceptable would be another story, but this... eh. Just doesn't seem that extreme to me.

I'm going to unlock this in case someone wants to pick my brain or offer more evidence, but if it spins into another General-esque debate, I'll relock it.

I gave the thread a read, and I am sorry, but I fail to see any trolling. Since when is raising a position one may not even believe in "trolling"? It seems certain people simply have it out for F&G.

Actually... it's a legit topic of debate. It's a strident position to take, but I don't think that simply feeling that Nixon got a raw deal is whacko enough to rise to the level of trolling. Most people, especially on our forums, may feel that Nixon far overstepped his bounds, but stating that he shouldn't have had to hand over his tapes isn't an extreme position. Stating that the Watergate break-in was acceptable would be another story, but this... eh. Just doesn't seem that extreme to me.

I'm going to unlock this in case someone wants to pick my brain or offer more evidence, but if it spins into another General-esque debate, I'll relock it.

Yes exactly! That topic is hardly extreme, many many people agree with fng's position on this around the world. NSG has gone so crazy lately, anyone who has only even moderately right wing views are accused of trolling.

I completely agree with Hack.

I am pretty sure that the hyperbole in that post was what launched this crusade (not to mention who the poster was), and I am glad Hack could distinguish between rhetoric and trolling.

Seriously, if this issue has been discussed by congress and the SCOTUS, how are we above it?

Although this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829519&postcount=8) may have bridged the gap into trolling.

Although this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12829519&postcount=8) may have bridged the gap into trolling.

I regret the ambiguity of that post. I didn't mean that the left-wingers on this forums were drones, but rather that I would become a left-wing drone should I abandon my tenaciously-held right-wing beliefs in order to avoid being branded a troll.

What about that thread he made about how we should nuke the north pole?
If that's not a troll thread what is?

It's a highly selective perspective to assume that FreedomAndGlory is not being deliberately provocative. I'd like to chip in and suggest, however, that being provocative is not the same as attempting to invoke inflammatory response. F&G actually makes very entertaining attempts at rationalising what are often ridiculous and abhorrent viewpoints, and while I'm not convinced by any of it, it's an interesting exercise in backing up established positions that we might take for granted.

Perhaps if people were a little less sensitive about their beliefs, we might actually get a few exciting discussions going.

What about that thread he made about how we should nuke the north pole?
If that's not a troll thread what is?I haven't read it, but it could be a joke. Like the rather funny Nuke The Moon (http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm) essay.

On it's own it's not an entirely objectionable opinion, however, I believe that in the context of FAG's previous behavior as outlined by Fris and anyone else who has reported him for trolling, it does fit the bill, or at least that's the argument that's being made, and personally how I see it.

Just because someone is a troll, it doesn't mean that every post they make is trolling.

Just because someone is a troll, it doesn't mean that every post they make is trolling.

got a question. would other people calling him MTAE, be considered flaming? or is it flaming only if it's not true?

It's certainly bad form. Last time I looked, players don't have the ability to look at IPs and other methods that are used to detect multis.

I haven't read it, but it could be a joke. Like the rather funny Nuke The Moon (http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm) essay.
Sorry my mistake, someone else posted a thread about Russia wanting to claim the north pole as part of their country, and since his was the second post I got confused, my bad.
Still...
If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.

I think the crosses the line from trolling into straight-up idiocy. Strikes me as rather too stupid a comment to invoke much ire (like the aforementioned Nuke The Moon, but considerably less amusing).

I think the crosses the line from trolling into straight-up idiocy. Strikes me as rather too stupid a comment to invoke much ire (like the aforementioned Nuke The Moon, but considerably less amusing).

Idiocy? It happens to be the optimal method by which the Russians can be prevented from making economically viable territorial acquisitions that will expand their geo-political petro-power (the other being a military occupation, which is a logistic and economic head-ache). If you acknowledge that it is wise to prevent the Russians from obtaining too much power on the world stage, you must admit that sometimes "extreme" methods must be taken to achieve this goal. I resent this being called "straight-up idiocy," and by a moderator no less.

Idiocy? It happens to be the optimal method by which the Russians can be prevented from making economically viable territorial acquisitions that will expand their geo-political petro-power (the other being a military occupation, which is a logistic and economic head-ache). If you acknowledge that it is wise to prevent the Russians from obtaining too much power on the world stage, you must admit that sometimes "extreme" methods must be taken to achieve this goal. I resent this being called "straight-up idiocy," and by a moderator no less.

Moderators are human and as such, are occasionally entitled to *gasp* their own opinion, much like you. :eek: I know, scandalous! A moderator trying to express his/her opinion even if it is biased! The world will end! OH NO! Anything but that! We can't possibly have moderators expressing a point of view! It'll cause society to break down! ANARCHY WILL ENSUE!

We can't possibly have moderators calling something "straight-up idiocy", it'll destroy the moral fabric of the western world as we know! It'll let the Russians take us over!

Moderators are human and as such, are occasionally entitled to *gasp* their own opinion,

I know, but in a moderator thread, it comes across with a sort of finality. I wouldn't mind at all had it been posted in the relevant NSG thread. Enough posters call me a troll, or crazy, or just plain stupid without having a moderator contribute to this frenzy.

Edit: but I do appreciate your sarcasm. :)

Idiocy? It happens to be the optimal method by which the Russians can be prevented from making economically viable territorial acquisitions that will expand their geo-political petro-power (the other being a military occupation, which is a logistic and economic head-ache). If you acknowledge that it is wise to prevent the Russians from obtaining too much power on the world stage, you must admit that sometimes "extreme" methods must be taken to achieve this goal. I resent this being called "straight-up idiocy," and by a moderator no less.

Butthe question is, what's on the north pole for a large country with a collapsed economy? And if we nuke the north pole, what happens when the radiation goes further south, hitting Europe, Russia, Canada, and even the US! :eek:

I know, but in a moderator thread, it comes across with a sort of finality. I wouldn't mind at all had it been posted in the relevant NSG thread. Enough posters call me a troll, or crazy, or just plain stupid without having a moderator contribute to this frenzy.

I don't know about the rest of NSG, but I prefer my moderators to display human traits, such as the ability to think for themselves.

I don't know about the rest of NSG, but I prefer my moderators to display human traits, such as the ability to think for themselves.

Yes, but when contributing to a thread in the moderation forum, they should strive to be completely impartial and apply the rules fairly and firmly. The general forum is for statements of opinion; the moderation forum is for statements of fact. I know that TMGH is an excellent and unbiased moderator whose rulings aren't affected by personal feelings; I also know that he, and a slew of other posters, believe that me, my views, or both to be imbecilic. But I'd have hoped that this unflattering assessment of me wouldn't have been presented in the moderation forum, and by a moderator no less.

I resent this being called "straight-up idiocy," and by a moderator no less.

I'm sure he can live with your disappointment.

Yes, but when contributing to a thread in the moderation forum, they should strive to be completely impartial and apply the rules fairly and firmly. The general forum is for statements of opinion; the moderation forum is for statements of fact. I know that TMGH is an excellent and unbiased moderator whose rulings aren't affected by personal feelings; I also know that he, and a slew of other posters, believe that me, my views, or both to be imbecilic. But I'd have hoped that this unflattering assessment of me wouldn't have been presented in the moderation forum, and by a moderator no less.

Ah, but you were not contributing to it as if it was a moderation thread. You were talking as if it were a thread in general. It is NOT fact that the Russians are going to occupy the north pole, and it is certainly no fact that it is a good idea to bomb it.

Idiocy? It happens to be the optimal method by which the Russians can be prevented from making economically viable territorial acquisitions that will expand their geo-political petro-power (the other being a military occupation, which is a logistic and economic head-ache). If you acknowledge that it is wise to prevent the Russians from obtaining too much power on the world stage, you must admit that sometimes "extreme" methods must be taken to achieve this goal. I resent this being called "straight-up idiocy," and by a moderator no less.

Show me the facts.

Ah, but you were not contributing to it as if it was a moderation thread. You were talking as if it were a thread in general. It is NOT fact that the Russians are going to occupy the north pole, and it is certainly no fact that it is a good idea to bomb it.



Show me the facts.

Um, not general, thus there is no argument for him showing "the facts" here. He already has a thread about this. Argue about it there.

Ah, but you were not contributing to it as if it was a moderation thread.

Ah, but I was simply stating that my stance was cogent and logical; to claim it outright idiotic would therefore be expressing an opinion. I'm not here to debate whether my viewpoint is positive in its ramifications; that's beyond the scope of this forum and should be discussed in the general forum. I am, however, saying that it is a valid, reasonable position. Saying otherwise, without proof, is highly prejudicial in an environment which is already hostile towards my political views.

Show me the facts.

This is the moderation forum; don't try to turn it into the general forum by drawing me into a debate about my views regarding Russia's lust for territorial expansion with respect to the North Pole.