I was the person who scored your post "Flame Bait/Troll," defined thusly: "The obvious intent of the comment is to generate a flaming response or throws out an unfounded tidbit with hopes of emotionally invigorating another reader. This is done by posting ridiculous or obviously over-biased statements, or conducting "drive-by" commenting, i.e., heated and/or unfounded one-liners.
Heated and/or unfounded one-liners:
>Who fostered the terrorists we now are attacking? We support more warlords and trade more weapons than anyone.
Heaven forbid we allow someone to prosecute a high ranking military official for murder or rape…we don’t even do it ourselves. Our government officials steal money as well you know.
Here’s another example, where "the obvious intent of the comment is to generate a flaming response or throws out an unfounded tidbit with hopes of emotionally invigorating another reader:"
>Sorry mam but you see we raped your 14 year old daughter and then murdered her and her family because we were hear to give you freedom.
The below sentence doesn’t qualify as flame bait but I wanted to highlight it as the only thing you said that really makes sense.
>Just because there are a few bad eggs doesn’t mean the whole fridge is rotten.
I for one am happy to have a dissenting mind on Omninerd but I expect some evidence when you make outrageous statements that smear entire governments and militaries. I hate bad spelling too, as a pet peeve, but the truth is it makes you look like you have not put any serious thought into your post, especially if you couple bad spelling with bad content and anonymity.
>Sure you could call my response trolling but then so was the other response.
I didn’t score Dilly’s comment, but I wouldn’t classify it as flame bait. Maybe we need to create a "no evidence given" score that’s worth 2 points, eh moderators? I tend to agree with his opinion more than yours in this case, but I don’t think that makes me "hyper-conservative," just "sensible."
This is done by posting ridiculous or obviously over-biased statements, or conducting "drive-by" commenting, i.e., heated and/or unfounded one-liners.
Okay I will accept this definition…but then what is this?
>from LordDilly post: Really? You mean the "Peacekeepers" take breaks from raping young girls to hand out food?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- the rest of the world (embodied in the UN) doesn’t really give a shit about anybody else
Now look at the statement that you posted from me…an how do they differ. As for the posted statement about raping a 14yr old daughter and then killing her, I was refering to the current judicial case brought against 5 marines in Iraq.
And what is this statement:
>The below sentence doesn’t qualify as flame bait but I wanted to highlight it as the only thing you said that really makes sense.
My entire post "made sense", however you may not agree with it. To make such a statement is only meant to degrade me. You can not agree with someone without degrading them, that was my point. It was a post about how some of the same criticisms that the poster (i.e. LordDilly) made about the UN are to be applied to the US, other governments, and charitable groups. And when you couple such statements with the grading system that you have here on your site, then by giving someone a low score for statements made and someone else a high score for similiar statements made is wrong. The only reason I can see that such a post wasn’t treated equally like mine is because the statements made in said post reflect the general opinion here on your forum. If that is the general consensus of the moderators then of course you wouldn’t score it low.
I’m sorry I didn’t provide more "evidence" in the form of links in my prior post, but most of what I stated is common knowledge. The CIA did supply weapons to Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting in Afghanistan against the Russians. The US does export more second hand weapons than any other nation. I’m not asking to be given a 4 four genious….but a 1 shows a bias that is present on this site.
The same poster received a 4 for this post and while he does have some good information and links he also makes statements like:
>The UN are gutless, pathetic maggots.
>The whole "poor Palestinian people" thing is a sham.
Such statements don’t make the poster seem intelligent but rather bigoted. Yet a 4 is still given for such inflamatory remarks.
It’s not right.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.