What do you call someone
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nope ... that might have been true a few years ago (although I understand that even at it's conception there were multiple individuals involved)
More recently, Wikileaks was a rather small, far-flung organization, with members all over the globe.
Now, primarily thanks to the actions of your government, it has experienced what can only be called .... a rather dramatic rise in growth .....
And I predict, that further and continued government action (if they are really singularly stupid enough to go there) will result in probably what will be an even more dramatic rise in the membership rolls .....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Seeings how it appears you wanna play this game, let's see if you can really play:
Ok, here's the premise:
Person A sees two separate, individual things .... and believes them to be "the same" .....
Person B sees two separate, individual things .... and while observing that although they are similar, sees that they are, in fact, different .....
Now, for 200, and a chance at what's behind the door:
How is Person A different from Person B ?
Answer: Again, Not Real Bright.
Ooops .. gave that one away .... sorry ....
Still wanna play ?
Ok, here's the premise:
Person A sees two separate, individual things .... and believes them to be "the same" .....
Person B sees two separate, individual things .... and while observing that although they are similar, sees that they are, in fact, different .....
Now, for 200, and a chance at what's behind the door:
How is Person A different from Person B ?
Answer: Again, Not Real Bright.
Ooops .. gave that one away .... sorry ....
Still wanna play ?
Last edited:
Considering how closely tied Wikileaks and Assange are, it's not really a stretch at all to consider them one in the same, despite the fact that they are obviously different. Just like Microsoft and Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs and Apple.
As for Buhzinga !
(it's actually Bazinga)
No, Leo, it's not a totally dim thing, as well as definitely being beneath the not real bright level. It's from the mind of a bona fide genius.
And he's not crazy, his mother had him tested.
As for Buhzinga !
(it's actually Bazinga)
No, Leo, it's not a totally dim thing, as well as definitely being beneath the not real bright level. It's from the mind of a bona fide genius.
And he's not crazy, his mother had him tested.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Jaminjim wrote:
Thats BS..I am pretty sure that at some point I have started over 30 thread in 1 day about barry....YOUR President....
Thats BS..I am pretty sure that at some point I have started over 30 thread in 1 day about barry....YOUR President....
Brisco
Expert Expediter
A Troll.......
The same type of discussion board trolls that helped me make my decision to close down the dozen or so boards I owned and ran back when Gore tried to steal the election from Bush.
Honestly, not worth the hassle. Quite frankly, I'm surprised Lawrence is even allowing the mass flooding of articles that are coming from one or two members personal opinions/beliefs. Personally, I would probably delete a good 20-30 threads a day down here in the soapbox if this were my board.
1 Wikileaks and Julian Assange are closely related, but not the same: the man may become disassociated with the organization at some point, but it will continue, same as Apple without Jobs.
2 Dislike of Obama is hardly a newsworthy topic - negativity towards the POTUS has always, and undoubtedly will always exist. When it isn't newsworthy, it's an obsession, IMO.
3 The current crop of articles have been read [and checked for accuracy] by the OP, whereas the perpetrator of the Obama onslaught admitted he neither knew nor cared whether there was a shred of truth in what he slapped up here.
2 Dislike of Obama is hardly a newsworthy topic - negativity towards the POTUS has always, and undoubtedly will always exist. When it isn't newsworthy, it's an obsession, IMO.
3 The current crop of articles have been read [and checked for accuracy] by the OP, whereas the perpetrator of the Obama onslaught admitted he neither knew nor cared whether there was a shred of truth in what he slapped up here.
Your surprise at what Lawrence is allowing stems from your lack of knowledge as to what Lawrence does and doesn't do here.
And if this were your board and you deleted 20-30 threads a day, those with an IQ greater than their shoe size would be elsewhere.
O - is that why you're here, because 'your' boards are ghost towns?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
Source: Wikipedia
Insulting, uncalled for and out of bounds?? What's that old saying - "If the shoe fits...". Briscoe's term fits more like a glove.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
The point could be made that we who post in the soapbox regularly are still lacking objectivity. Too many have openly complained when one member posted too much on one subject but will jump in to defend another member, one that they like, when he does the same thing. It's pretty predictable, even before the responses begin, which ones will come down on which side of the fence, regardless of the topic.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
I think I resemble that remark.DD said:
When I made my complaint(s) I was complaining about the large number of cut and paste with no regard to the accuracy of the posted material, and no real comment other than "hows change working for ya". The Dennis also said earlier today that he has had days where he posted at least thirty threads. So the combination of plastering the board with volume he also never checked any of the material to see if it was even halve way correct, going so far as to say he didn't even care.
In my mind that is different then what RLENT is doing.
Last edited:
Whereas I see it as different because [as I already posted], dislike of the POTUS isn't exactly newsworthy, while the Wikileaks story is.
And the Obama stuff wasn't checked for accuracy, something I believe the poster has an obligation to do - how can anyone dispute or refute them, when they appear at that pace?
Finally, RLENT has been doing it for a week - how long was it before anyone complained about the Chef doing it, hmmm? If it continues, rest assured: I will complain.
And the Obama stuff wasn't checked for accuracy, something I believe the poster has an obligation to do - how can anyone dispute or refute them, when they appear at that pace?
Finally, RLENT has been doing it for a week - how long was it before anyone complained about the Chef doing it, hmmm? If it continues, rest assured: I will complain.