Knowsnowt .....I've got to ask the question

[gasbanni]

Yet again your saying someone or others post is boring, Why you like to go on a post and say it's boring I don't really understand, as for me I skip it if I'm not interested.

But that's not my question.
My question is can you point me to a thread that you've started that's interesting ?
I'd like to see what you think is interesting, I'm obviously meaning this particular general discussion forum as its this one where you keep saying threads are boring.

I'll unignore you so I can see your reply ......your friend gasbanni

 

[noseall]

Dull as dishwater. However I feel I have a duty to show where retarded posters are posting stuff that is incorrect, bullshoite or just plain old lies. It's not their fault they are thick but is is down to those of us with a modicum of sense to show where they have gone wrong.
I don't remember posting anything on GD that is remotely interesting. However some posters do find my comebacks and retorts amusing. Their words not mine.

As you might have gathered, I don't play to the crowds unlike the RWR herd mentality that is often on display on GD.

 

[Himaginn]

I also think that noseall is incredibly brave and sincere to post his picture so that he could be identified. He has my full admiration and respect. As does anyone else who voluntarily identifies themselves.
IMO, with freedom of speech comes responsibility. The RWR post their comments anonymously and without fear of reprisals. They exploit the opportunity of freedom of speech but dare not carry any responsibility.
I'd like to see a situation where all contributors to social media are obliged to reveal their true identity, if not online, then to the hosts of the social media site, so that it is easily possible for them to be identified, should the need arise.
Before anyone takes issue with me not identifying myself, if the RWR would like to lead, on this occasion I'll happily follow.
I haven't done so before because the RWR demonstrate how willing they are to exploit personal profiles to launch unfounded ad hominem attacks.

 

[ajstoneservices]

I'm gonna have to start wearing nappies.

 

[Himaginn]

I'm gonna have to start wearing nappies.

That's a bit off-topic. (well TBH, it's way off-topic) Can you get them on prescription?
I'm truly sorry to hear of your impending problems.
We all have our crosses to bear I suppose.

 

[ajstoneservices]

 

[nauseous]

I also think that noseall is incredibly brave and sincere to post his picture so that he could be identified. He has my full admiration and respect.

Are you sure it's him? I assumed it was someone he didn't like and wants him offed.

 

[Roger928]

Yes noseall is a scream. He re-words your post in a quote and then asks a question that doesn't accurately address the modification he has just deviously made.

 

[Himaginn]

Yes noseall is a scream. He re-words your post in a quote and then asks a question that doesn't accurately address the modification he has just deviously made.

However some posters do find my comebacks and retorts amusing.Their words not mine.

 

[transam]

I also think that noseall is incredibly brave and sincere to post his picture so that he could be identified. He has my full admiration and respect. As does anyone else who voluntarily identifies themselves.
IMO, with freedom of speech comes responsibility. The RWR post their comments anonymously and without fear of reprisals. They exploit the opportunity of freedom of speech but dare not carry any responsibility.
I'd like to see a situation where all contributors to social media are obliged to reveal their true identity, if not online, then to the hosts of the social media site, so that it is easily possible for them to be identified, should the need arise.
Before anyone takes issue with me not identifying myself, if the RWR would like to lead, on this occasion I'll happily follow.
I haven't done so before because the RWR demonstrate how willing they are to exploit personal profiles to launch unfounded ad hominem attacks.

Lead by example I say

Any way one needs to tread a careful path in these particular times ?

look what happened to that shop keeper in Scotland some fruit cake identified him from social media turned up & stabbed him to death.

His "Supporters" were at the trial

make some legit comment on a certain subject in here & u may end up with some religious fruit cake come bigot around yer house to behead you ??

 

[Himaginn]

I also think that noseall is incredibly brave and sincere to post his picture so that he could be identified. He has my full admiration and respect. As does anyone else who voluntarily identifies themselves.
IMO, with freedom of speech comes responsibility. The RWR post their comments anonymously and without fear of reprisals. They exploit the opportunity of freedom of speech but dare not carry any responsibility.
I'd like to see a situation where all contributors to social media are obliged to reveal their true identity, if not online, then to the hosts of the social media site, so that it is easily possible for them to be identified, should the need arise.
Before anyone takes issue with me not identifying myself, if the RWR would like to lead, on this occasion I'll happily follow.
I haven't done so before because the RWR demonstrate how willing they are to exploit personal profiles to launch unfounded ad hominem attacks.

Lead by example I say

Any way one needs to tread a careful path in these particular times ?

look what happened to that shop keeper in Scotland some fruit cake identified him from social media turned up & stabbed him to death.

His "Supporters" were at the trial

make some legit comment on a certain subject in here & u may end up with some religious fruit cake come bigot around yer house to behead you ??

You mean that when you're posting a comment on here, all the usual social norms are discarded and ignored, or may be discarded and ignored?
Isn't that what I'm talking about?

 

[transam]

I also think that noseall is incredibly brave and sincere to post his picture so that he could be identified. He has my full admiration and respect. As does anyone else who voluntarily identifies themselves.
IMO, with freedom of speech comes responsibility. The RWR post their comments anonymously and without fear of reprisals. They exploit the opportunity of freedom of speech but dare not carry any responsibility.
I'd like to see a situation where all contributors to social media are obliged to reveal their true identity, if not online, then to the hosts of the social media site, so that it is easily possible for them to be identified, should the need arise.
Before anyone takes issue with me not identifying myself, if the RWR would like to lead, on this occasion I'll happily follow.
I haven't done so before because the RWR demonstrate how willing they are to exploit personal profiles to launch unfounded ad hominem attacks.

Lead by example I say

Any way one needs to tread a careful path in these particular times ?

look what happened to that shop keeper in Scotland some fruit cake identified him from social media turned up & stabbed him to death.

His "Supporters" were at the trial

make some legit comment on a certain subject in here & u may end up with some religious fruit cake come bigot around yer house to behead you ??

You mean that when you're posting a comment on here, all the usual social norms are discarded and ignored, or may be discarded and ignored?
Isn't that what I'm talking about?

Not with you ?? explain ?

 

[noseall]

He re-words your post in a quote and then asks a question that doesn't accurately address the modification he has just deviously made.

?

 

[Himaginn]

Any way one needs to tread a careful path in these particular times ?
make some legit comment on a certain subject in here & u may end up with some religious fruit cake come bigot around yer house to behead you ??

Or it could be one of the regular posters:

.. As well of course as the fact that you wouldn't dare to say that to my face, says a lot about you.

 

[Himaginn]

He re-words your post in a quote and then asks a question that doesn't accurately address the modification he has just deviously made.

?

Was Roger's comment intentionally ironic?