I enjoy coming here.....but I do not enjoy hitting on a 'new' Thread to read material already the subject of another Thread.  It happens all the time, and 'both' sides are guilty.

All those who agree with me that the Mods need to take some sort of action.....(to be discussed)......vote, "Yes."  Those who enjoy reading the same stuff all over the Board.....vote, "No."

I'm.....yes.

When you said vote yes I thought there was a poll.

I agree to some extent but also disagree a bit, put me down as a definate maybe possibly probably.

I don't know if the answer is enforcment - maybe the offenders should act more responsibly.

We could go to the effort of identifying the first posted and only responding in that one?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

When you said vote yes I thought there was a poll. I agree to some extent but also disagree a bit, put me down as a definate maybe possibly probably. I don't know if the answer is enforcment - maybe the offenders should act more responsibly. We could go to the effort of identifying the first posted and only responding in that one?

Does not work.  All the puppets descend on all the multiple Threads. 

There is the Poll.

It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen

the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic.

SOB

If it does not happen......that will not be because no-one tried.

I'd mod. Reluctantly.

But you would ALL hate me (as if you all already don't).

I love to mod, on my boards/forums, and I would be a good one, I think.

But, no, sorry.

Not here. Not without total authority.

I'm happy just running 'Welfare'.

I'd prefer if multi -threads were incorporated .. funny that  ::)

oh oh  only in terms of keeping redundancy to a min.

:)

if you use different headings its hard to know its already been done..thats what I find..

it isnt until its opened I realize I have already read it...

I dont know as its that big a deal really, and the poor mod would have to read every one..

I know of worse things on here..well at least things that irritate me..I think we have enough policing to be honest..

when there a duplicate thread its usually a mistake..

if you are referring to THOMO threads or Boat People threads I find they are usually on another topic related to the same subject and I am happy with those.. who want to read something line 1000 replies... no thank you..I wouldnt do it.

I actually used to do this occasionally when the forum was 100 times smaller. Then it started to feel like OCD. I have put it in the rules somewhere that you should check for existing threads on a topic before starting a new one. I know crook starts one on whaling every time Paul Watson farts.

That being said, I am all for Aussie getting some action.

tell me FD whats the problem with more than one thread on the same subject... I mean lets talk about Boat People... all the topics on this subject are not the same..yet they all pertain to asylum seekers...why have one thread with about 1000 replies all to different portions of the topic... doesnt make a lot of sense to me..I wouldnt read through them to see what I would like to debate...I would neither have the time nor interest to do so..half the comments are nonsense..another stack are personal attacks..have nothing to do with the op...come on the fewer replies to something the better the front page..it moves much faster..

why would you want one thread for education for instance...or hospitals...or  Abbott...[?] ...hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

if you dont like a poster dont open them.. thats my motto..wouldnt care how many they posted...I do have trouble with those that take up a whole page to print one line though....

but thats them I cant see a mod changing that..

Here is some proof:


Quote:

Board Topics             UN chief throws doubt into global warming « Pages 1 2 ... 11 12 13 all » This topic contains 1 attachment      salad in      189      1980      Last Post Today at 6:33pm By: rabbitoh07             UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. « Pages 1 2 ... 6 7 8 all »      MOTR      109      1098      Last Post Today at 6:32pm By: Aussie

Two Threads (Politics.....) on exactly the same issue.

:)
     

I don't think it's a major problem. Most political issues are multifaceted. Nothing more annoying than having one thread that contains multiple arguments about quite different aspects of the same issue.

I just think maqqa should be banned .... paid political activists should not be allowed.

The sad thing is, I think he does that for free.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:12pm:

The sad thing is, I think he does that for free.

No way.  'He' is on the LNP pay-roll.  Peta Credlin (or someone on her staff)  probably........and doing a great job keeping the LNP agenda right up there all the time.

Gimme the buttons for 48 hours.  I'll immediately ban Maqqa....and then.....wait to see what next pops up.

:)

well

I'd prefer as few threads per topic as possible....  and there is an easy way to check  C O D S... doh  :-?
CLICK ON DA SEARCH   ;D 8-)

you enter a SEARCH  ,, keywords.. and it will show threads with your key words... 

NOT THAT HARD really... and this is for the benefit of all who haven't tried it... .

regards  and Cheers On Decoding Sh8t.

Well then you'd have to talk about DRAH as well..he/she has 6 or 7 threads running on the NBN/FTTN on polsucks, most of which have 0 or 1 reply in each.

Deathray is fine  by me...

C O D S  on the other hand...  needs

:) :)

Criticism On Decency Standards

;D

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:24pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:12pm: The sad thing is, I think he does that for free. No way.  'He' is on the LNP pay-roll.  Peta Credlin (or someone on her staff)  probably........and doing a great job keeping the LNP agenda right up there all the time. Gimme the buttons for 48 hours.  I'll immediately ban Maqqa....and then.....wait to see what next pops up. :)

Now why would you ban maqqa when all he does is start multiple threads? He doesnt really abuse ppl and he has a right to his (weird) opinion. The real trolls abuse ppl and dont even bother referring to the topics and completely derail any threads they disagree with by personal abuse. They should be banned before the peaceful ppl who you can ignore if you dont like their threads. I dont open every maqqa thread but every single thread i go in there are 3 - or 4 trolls that follow me around with personal abuse and no discussion @ all and it halts anyone else from being able to have a discussion. Also its not just me - its anyone not to the right of hitler that cops these few trolls stalking them.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:20am:

Aussie wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:12pm: The sad thing is, I think he does that for free. No way.  'He' is on the LNP pay-roll.  Peta Credlin (or someone on her staff)  probably........and doing a great job keeping the LNP agenda right up there all the time. Gimme the buttons for 48 hours.  I'll immediately ban Maqqa....and then.....wait to see what next pops up. :) Now why would you ban maqqa when all he does is start multiple threads? He doesnt really abuse ppl and he has a right to his (weird) opinion. The real trolls abuse ppl and dont even bother referring to the topics and completely derail any threads they disagree with by personal abuse. They should be banned before the peaceful ppl who you can ignore if you dont like their threads. I dont open every maqqa thread but every single thread i go in there are 3 - or 4 trolls that follow me around with personal abuse and no discussion @ all and it halts anyone else from being able to have a discussion. Also its not just me - its anyone not to the right of hitler that cops these few trolls stalking them. SOB

Miss Borg, as soon as you use  Hitler (totally out of context) trying to defend or justify a point you lose.

Lets look at who on here you engage and they you..........Emma Peel and Wiseone.  That in it's self would  ring alarm bells in most people as both appear to be half a teaspoon of coffee short of a cup.

If you weren't such a dingbat you may have posters responding to the subject matter but your posts like these certainly don't help.

Lots of ppl here prolly wouldn't remember her seeing as they werent born yet.

You have evidence that anyone will molest anyone else? What makes you think you can call ppl molesters without knowing anything about them

Go away troll


Now, blow your nose, dry your eyes and stop blubbering.

---

Awww did the shoe fit then?

SOB

Quote:

Now why would you ban maqqa when all he does is start multiple threads?

To send the clear message that one must check to see if there is an existing thread on a subject before you start another on the same subject.

I ban (well.....for a short period) would work miracles.

:)

I had no problem with the way Longie and Perce used to combine
multiple threads by the same person and/or on the same topic.

I'd probably do the same myself....

Kat wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

I had no problem with the way Longie and Perce used to combine multiple threads by the same person and/or on the same topic. I'd probably do the same myself....

Yes...there  is a 'ready to go' button to do exactly that......but, no-one seems to know about it.

:-?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:30am:

I actually used to do this occasionally when the forum was 100 times smaller. Then it started to feel like OCD. I have put it in the rules somewhere that you should check for existing threads on a topic before starting a new one. I know crook starts one on whaling every time Paul Watson farts. That being said, I am all for Aussie getting some action.

How funny.   ;D

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:15am:

Miss Borg, as soon as you use  Hitler (totally out of context) trying to defend or justify a point you lose.

Ah, yes. Reductio ad Hitlerum or Playing the Nazi or Hitler card.

From the Urban Dictionary:


Quote:

A common last ditch effort in a heated political debate to steer the argument back in one's favor by declaring your opponent's position to be that of Adolf Hitler. Often times this is done with little thought as to whether or not Adolf Hitler was for or against a particular side. Who cares about logic it's just fun to insult your opponents by likening them or their beliefs to tyrannical despots.

Lost count of how many times I've seen that used in my 12 years online.

Carl D wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 11:16pm:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:15am: Miss Borg, as soon as you use  Hitler (totally out of context) trying to defend or justify a point you lose. Ah, yes. Reductio ad Hitlerum or Playing the Nazi or Hitler card. From the Urban Dictionary: Quote: A common last ditch effort in a heated political debate to steer the argument back in one's favor by declaring your opponent's position to be that of Adolf Hitler. Often times this is done with little thought as to whether or not Adolf Hitler was for or against a particular side. Who cares about logic it's just fun to insult your opponents by likening them or their beliefs to tyrannical despots. Lost count of how many times I've seen that used in my 12 years online.

Myself also, Carl.

But, sometimes, it is a valid response to an argument, depending on the topic, the context and the intent.

It isn't always the last refuge of someone who's lost the argument, or the response of a troll.

(Just usually).    :P ;) :-?

ah here we hear   
about Godwin's Law... again.. 

I mean I just saw an episode of QI the other night.,.. 

and Godwin's law  came up...!   :) WOW  MINDBLOWING!!!!!!!!
Rubbish it if you like but hey it's on QI..!!!! 

Must have substance... :)
:)
regardless of dissenters... seeing as it continues as an idea applicable to all.  but mostly, internet boards...   

Aussie wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 2:50pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 12:06pm: I had no problem with the way Longie and Perce used to combine multiple threads by the same person and/or on the same topic. I'd probably do the same myself.... Yes...there  is a 'ready to go' button to do exactly that......but, no-one seems to know about it. :-?

What ? Where? 

yep I'm ready to go... 
;D

Allow me to think aloud:

The problem is multiple threads by one or two posters, which decreases the signal to noise ratio.

The suggested solution is for mods to combine the threads.   

That solution takes up quite a lot of time. It's quite fiddly to combine the threads, and it's time that I would rather spend doing something else. (speaking for myself) The onus is on the mods.

Another possibility is this: If you notice multiple threads on the same subject, report it.   Mods may then (applying judgement) lock all but one thread and give the poster a warning that such behaviour will result in a suspension. If the behaviour continues, issue a suspension. That puts the onus on the offender.

Having said that,  I'm not aware that there is currently anything in the current rules against multiple threads on the same subject and that would be difficult to regulate anyway.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 12:06am:

Well then you'd have to talk about DRAH as well..he/she has 6 or 7 threads running on the NBN/FTTN on polsucks, most of which have 0 or 1 reply in each.

how about imcrook...almost always the same topic...to do with unions.. and how wonderful they are..I dont mind him I think its ok.  it helps us to learn about something we maybe never think about..

and it beats....b eating up on others on here anyway...

if I dont like a TV program I hit the remote... it works... same with the threads... DONT LIKE!!!!!dont hit quote..or open..

its soooooooooo easy..

if you think they fill up the front page.. make a new thread of your own and they will soon be down the bottom..

ITS CALLED/... GETTING YOUR OWN BACK..

in other words.. find something really bad to whinge about..

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:20am:

Aussie wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:12pm: The sad thing is, I think he does that for free. No way.  'He' is on the LNP pay-roll.  Peta Credlin (or someone on her staff)  probably........and doing a great job keeping the LNP agenda right up there all the time. Gimme the buttons for 48 hours.  I'll immediately ban Maqqa....and then.....wait to see what next pops up. :) Now why would you ban maqqa when all he does is start multiple threads? He doesnt really abuse ppl and he has a right to his (weird) opinion. The real trolls abuse ppl and dont even bother referring to the topics and completely derail any threads they disagree with by personal abuse. They should be banned before the peaceful ppl who you can ignore if you dont like their threads. I dont open every maqqa thread but every single thread i go in there are 3 - or 4 trolls that follow me around with personal abuse and no discussion @ all and it halts anyone else from being able to have a discussion. Also its not just me - its anyone not to the right of hitler that cops these few trolls stalking them. SOB

well said sob... at long last you are talking sense...macca doesnt abuse... well not often anyway.he does lose his temper though but not enough to ban for life..


btw you are not alone in being trolled...LOL... take it on the chin.. laugh at them... and just think like I do... I annoy them and thats GOOD...

they dont bother me as I FEEL SORRY FOR THEM

You'd have to do something pretty horrendous to ever cop a life ban from me.

Definitely a last resort.

I've seen some forums lose many valued posters for good over time because of
ONE frack-up, or ONE over-strict/zealous mod.

It's not a good look for the forums involved, and does discourage new members.

Warnings and graduated bans are far more effective, and you don't lose good
members for minor 'offenses'.

Kat wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

You'd have to do something pretty horrendous to ever cop a life ban from me. Definitely a last resort. I've seen some forums lose many valued posters for good over time because of ONE frack-up, or ONE over-strict/zealous mod. It's not a good look for the forums involved, and does discourage new members. Warnings and graduated bans are far more effective, and you don't lose good members for minor 'offenses'.

you for one get very upset though kat... you have said some quite pointed things on here of late about other posters... even myself you went berserk at.....claiming you were leaving because you were sick of certain people..

I mean thats a statement for the mods to read... and make notes about..so I am now scratching my head..

I dont recall ever calling for a ban on anyone.. some checking on them yes...like a huge long post containing one line..or just pointless crapola.I dont think banning is the answer but there should be some control over people who deliberately spoil the threads with crap.. thats all..

constant personal attacks.. too need a good looking at...the odd one or two one expects,.. but ad nauseum.. doesnt do it for me.

multiple threads on one subject... who cares?

Mods need to make an example of maqqa so that that forum doesnt get overrun with party-paid content.

Warn him that he is allowed to start 1 thread per day, and if he creates more then merge them into a "Maqqa rant" thread.  They all end up the same anyway.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:12am:

It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB

That's ridiculous. I can't think of much that FD and I agree on, but those accusations are baseless. For some reason, I don't think he's one of those desperate no-lifes that insist on making up multiple accounts. As to your second point, does anyone really like trolls? And your third is perhaps the most stupid of all - from what I've seen, he calls them out on their stupidity just as much as he does with anyone else. Perhaps he just respects their freedom of speech. Nobody is forcing you or Aussie or anyone else to click on threads started by members who annoy you.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB That's ridiculous. I can't think of much that FD and I agree on, but those accusations are baseless. For some reason, I don't think he's one of those desperate no-lifes that insist on making up multiple accounts. As to your second point, does anyone really like trolls? And your third is perhaps the most stupid of all - from what I've seen, he calls them out on their stupidity just as much as he does with anyone else. Perhaps he just respects their freedom of speech. Nobody is forcing you or Aussie or anyone else to click on threads started by members who annoy you.

Ahh the beautiful & sensible Annie returns.
The only sad thing Nicks words have gone :(

There she stands, this lovely creature
There she stands, there she stands
With her hair full of ribbons
And green gloves on her hands
So I asked this lovely creature
Yes, I asked. Yes I asked
Would she walk with me a while
Through this night so fast

Are your gloves green Annie?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

Mods need to make an example of maqqa so that that forum doesnt get overrun with party-paid content. Warn him that he is allowed to start 1 thread per day, and if he creates more then merge them into a "Maqqa rant" thread.  They all end up the same anyway.

---

don't tell me 

someone died??

Anthranx.....nice (deliberate) missing of the point.


Quote:

That's ridiculous. I can't think of much that FD and I agree on, but those accusations are baseless. For some reason, I don't think he's one of those desperate no-lifes that insist on making up multiple accounts.

This Petition has nothing to do with 'multiple accounts.'  It is about multiple Threads commenced (by anyone) on the same Topic. 



Quote:

As to your second point, does anyone really like trolls? And your third is perhaps the most stupid of all - from what I've seen, he calls them out on their stupidity just as much as he does with anyone else. Perhaps he just respects their freedom of speech. Nobody is forcing you or Aussie or anyone else to click on threads started by members who annoy you.

Proving that you missed the point.  Go ^^^^^^^^^^^^read.

;)

Smithy, I love gloves.  And Mr Cave - what a poet.

Over mountains, over ranges
By great pyramids and sphinxs
We met drifters and strangers
Oh the sands, my lovely creature
And the mad, moaning winds
At night the deserts writhed
With diabolical things
Through the night

Aussie, I quoted Spot. My reply was directed at Spot. I mentioned you in relation to his third 'point' because it was relevant. Don't read multiple threads on the same topic if they annoy you - stick to one.

Quote:

Don't read multiple threads on the same topic if they annoy you - stick to one.

So....the reader has the onus?  You miss the point again.  This Petition is about getting the Mods to act to prevent multiple Threads on the same topic, so that we punters need not have to bother wasting our time.  Surely, that is the Mod's job?  If not...what are they here for?

;)

Not much, obviously, but that's been apparent for some time. I can't see it changing any time soon.

I should say, I do appreciate what you're trying to do, but I can't remember a single time that a request like the one you made has had any effect.

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

Quote: Don't read multiple threads on the same topic if they annoy you - stick to one. So....the reader has the onus?  You miss the point again.  This Petition is about getting the Mods to act to prevent multiple Threads on the same topic, so that we punters need not have to bother wasting our time.  Surely, that is the Mod's job?  If not...what are they here for? ;)

aussie can you explain how you would pick these multi thread on the same subject without a poor mod reading everyone of them? I mean its not only pol/suxs that it happens on is it?????.

I presume thats the board you are mainly complaining about..

read musos post and he would know..

maybe you could volunteer to be the clean up mod! well its just a thought.

Well.....once you have read a few lines, it becomes apparent if it is a duplicate theme.  If they want a clean up Mod., sure I'll volunteer....but I'd also need the suspend button to wave around if people did not get the message.

;)

Aussie wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

Well.....once you have read a few lines, it becomes apparent if it is a duplicate theme.  If they want a clean up Mod., sure I'll volunteer....but I'd also need the suspend button to wave around if people did not get the message. ;)

NO NOT ANOTHER NAZI PLEASE...


what about imcrook aussie every thread he makes is about unions...

as a matter of fact I have never seen crook reply on anyone elses threads only his own...union chatter.

not that I am complaining just pointing out a fact of life..can you imagine all his threads in one????..
horrible thought..

the art of living is learning to live with others warts and all..and dwelling on the positives and not the negatives..

if you dont like macca why bother with him???. dont give him the pleasure of your comments.

Aussie has actually been promoting the idea of ignoring Maqqa. Ironically enough he does this by starting threads about him.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

Aussie has actually been promoting the idea of ignoring Maqqa. Ironically enough he does this by starting threads about him.

Wrong.  (No reference to any Poster, including Maqqa, in the OP.)  I am promoting the idea of ridding this place of redundant, multiple Threads on exactly the same theme...and I will highlight it no matter who (left or right) starts a new Thread needlessly.

Let's all ignore Maqqa by having a big bitch session about him.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360316893

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Let's all ignore Maqqa by having a big bitch session about him. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360316893

No.  Let's rid the Politics Forum of redundant multiple Threads on the same topic......no matter who starts them.

So this problem can no longer be ignored?

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

So this problem can no longer be ignored?

No, it can't.

So we should not ignore Maqqa?

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

So we should not ignore Maqqa?

Do what you like with Maqqa.  I have my very open view on that. 

But....this is not about him.  It is about redundant multiple Threads on the same theme in Politics commenced by either side, or anybody.

Carl D wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 11:16pm:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:15am: Miss Borg, as soon as you use  Hitler (totally out of context) trying to defend or justify a point you lose. Ah, yes. Reductio ad Hitlerum or Playing the Nazi or Hitler card. From the Urban Dictionary: Quote: A common last ditch effort in a heated political debate to steer the argument back in one's favor by declaring your opponent's position to be that of Adolf Hitler. Often times this is done with little thought as to whether or not Adolf Hitler was for or against a particular side. Who cares about logic it's just fun to insult your opponents by likening them or their beliefs to tyrannical despots. Lost count of how many times I've seen that used in my 12 years online.

Just mentioning hitler is not a godwin. In fact where is the heated debate? Seriously you ppl are taking it too far he was just an example of a right wing famous person fascist.

SOB

cods wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 5:20am: Aussie wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:12pm: The sad thing is, I think he does that for free. No way.  'He' is on the LNP pay-roll.  Peta Credlin (or someone on her staff)  probably........and doing a great job keeping the LNP agenda right up there all the time. Gimme the buttons for 48 hours.  I'll immediately ban Maqqa....and then.....wait to see what next pops up. :) Now why would you ban maqqa when all he does is start multiple threads? He doesnt really abuse ppl and he has a right to his (weird) opinion. The real trolls abuse ppl and dont even bother referring to the topics and completely derail any threads they disagree with by personal abuse. They should be banned before the peaceful ppl who you can ignore if you dont like their threads. I dont open every maqqa thread but every single thread i go in there are 3 - or 4 trolls that follow me around with personal abuse and no discussion @ all and it halts anyone else from being able to have a discussion. Also its not just me - its anyone not to the right of hitler that cops these few trolls stalking them. SOB well said sob... at long last you are talking sense...macca doesnt abuse... well not often anyway.he does lose his temper though but not enough to ban for life.. btw you are not alone in being trolled...LOL... take it on the chin.. laugh at them... and just think like I do... I annoy them and thats GOOD... they dont bother me as I FEEL SORRY FOR THEM

I say the same about any non-abuser here and have since i have been here.

SOB

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB That's ridiculous. I can't think of much that FD and I agree on, but those accusations are baseless. For some reason, I don't think he's one of those desperate no-lifes that insist on making up multiple accounts. As to your second point, does anyone really like trolls? And your third is perhaps the most stupid of all - from what I've seen, he calls them out on their stupidity just as much as he does with anyone else. Perhaps he just respects their freedom of speech. Nobody is forcing you or Aussie or anyone else to click on threads started by members who annoy you.

Really? So its ridiculous? So what happened? Have multiple threads been stopped? Are they looking like being stopped?

BTW obviously you havent read what i said because i said i don't open all maqqa threads. Not in this particular post but it wasnt mentioned @ all was it.

SOB

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

Aussie has actually been promoting the idea of ignoring Maqqa. Ironically enough he does this by starting threads about him.

aussie doesnt see the irony in the fact in his macca thread he has also accused him of doing exactly what he is bitching about in this thread...

he is just a whingers and he has his followers.

maybe macca should start a thread about getting rid of whingers... he would get a few on it I am sure...LOL..

aussie's usual followers are also usually those well meaning bleeding hearts that fall all over themselves telling us how tolerant and caring they are regarding boat people and how intolerant the rest of us are..

yet cant stand more than one thread on any one subject. it all get far too much for them... so much for tolerance.

unbelievable...

dont open the buggers... how hard is that?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 5:48am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 10:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB That's ridiculous. I can't think of much that FD and I agree on, but those accusations are baseless. For some reason, I don't think he's one of those desperate no-lifes that insist on making up multiple accounts. As to your second point, does anyone really like trolls? And your third is perhaps the most stupid of all - from what I've seen, he calls them out on their stupidity just as much as he does with anyone else. Perhaps he just respects their freedom of speech. Nobody is forcing you or Aussie or anyone else to click on threads started by members who annoy you. Really? So its ridiculous? So what happened? Have multiple threads been stopped? Are they looking like being stopped? BTW obviously you havent read what i said because i said i don't open all maqqa threads. Not in this particular post but it wasnt mentioned @ all was it. SOB

why should they be..


most thread are about different aspects of the same topic...I dont have a problem with that...


if they were all C&P and the same yes we have a problem..but they are not... that only happens rarely

cods wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 6:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 5:48am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 10:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB That's ridiculous. I can't think of much that FD and I agree on, but those accusations are baseless. For some reason, I don't think he's one of those desperate no-lifes that insist on making up multiple accounts. As to your second point, does anyone really like trolls? And your third is perhaps the most stupid of all - from what I've seen, he calls them out on their stupidity just as much as he does with anyone else. Perhaps he just respects their freedom of speech. Nobody is forcing you or Aussie or anyone else to click on threads started by members who annoy you. Really? So its ridiculous? So what happened? Have multiple threads been stopped? Are they looking like being stopped? BTW obviously you havent read what i said because i said i don't open all maqqa threads. Not in this particular post but it wasnt mentioned @ all was it. SOB why should they be.. most thread are about different aspects of the same topic...I dont have a problem with that... if they were all C&P and the same yes we have a problem..but they are not... that only happens rarely

I didnt say they should be - i said they wouldn't be - and annie said that was ridiculous.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:12am:

It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB

FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here.

Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella..............

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella..............

Why should I be banned Numberplate? (shiny on one side, shyte on the other, 2 small nuts and screwed each end)  I come on here and discuss things.  All you do is bag your daughter SOB.  Must be sad for you to be such a failure as a Mother ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Vic wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:18am:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 7:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella.............. Why should I be banned Numberplate? (shiny on one side, shyte on the other, 2 small nuts and screwed each end)  I come on here and discuss things.  All you do is bag your daughter SOB.  Must be sad for you to be such a failure as a Mother ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maybe you should ask your father to explain it to you.

Bit hard to when your birth certificate states, "Father unknown".

Yep, this is really discussing things.

"Another error - "was out-voted" .  Was voted out is the correct terminology - splitting the infinite verb again.  I notice you have still been picking up people on their spelling and grammar again - egg on face once again Grannie? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin"

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella..............

I never said they should be - in fact i said they should not be. Stop trolling me.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 7:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella.............. I never said they should be - in fact i said they should not be. Stop trolling me. SOB

Miss Borg, in the above highlight show me where you said "they should not be".

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:40am:

Vic wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 7:18am: KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 7:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella.............. Why should I be banned Numberplate? (shiny on one side, shyte on the other, 2 small nuts and screwed each end)  I come on here and discuss things.  All you do is bag your daughter SOB.  Must be sad for you to be such a failure as a Mother ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Maybe you should ask your father to explain it to you. Bit hard to when your birth certificate states, "Father unknown". Yep, this is really discussing things. "Another error - "was out-voted" .  Was voted out is the correct terminology - splitting the infinite verb again.  I notice you have still been picking up people on their spelling and grammar again - egg on face once again Grannie? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin"

Well Numberplate (shiny on one side, shyte on the other - two small nuts and screwed each end) Father unknown on a birth certificate probably means a human sexual interaction leading to a human birth.   Now where does that leave your parentage and conception,   Mrs Macs Home for Lost Dogs ?

As for old saulte, if you are going to go around constantly picking up other people for their spelling and grammar, you should make sure your  own is correct, Nes Par?

Now, I am sure you and your Daughter SOB have some shopping to do at Minto Mall - you get to see all the rellies as well! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella..............

Not sure why you think I should be banned, apart from occasionally highlighting your stupidity I hardly rate a mention compared to you ..

I've never seen a more rude crass individual than you. I've no idea why you haven't been banned permanently  .... get back in your kennel and maybe get some flea treatment while you're at it ...

Some people really do have too much time on their hands. :)

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 7:52am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 7:47am: KJT1981 wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 7:06am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 6:12am: It isnt going to happen aussie. FD wont ban olde sault or maqqa so it just wont happen. He doesnt even suspend trolls because a) its his sock or b) he likes trolls or c) they follow his politics? I dunno but for whatever reason . . . . . nothing will happen the thing is that if anything *did* happen it would be the poster that doesnt agree with his politics that gets dealt with even if they were the first to post the topic. SOB FD must like looneys Miss Borg as you are still here. Will you explain why macca and oldsalt should be banned and not crow, skippy, john smith, littlevicfella.............. I never said they should be - in fact i said they should not be. Stop trolling me. SOB Miss Borg, in the above highlight show me where you said "they should not be".

Maybe i didnt say it in that post you quoted but you havent shown where i said they should be banned and you wont because i didnt say it.

SOB

Look at the multiple Threads commenced by DRAH on  the NBN this evening.  Surely, it has to stop.

OK, I locked all but one. The locked threads will drop off the page pretty quickly. If there's a poll on a locked thread, too bad.

muso wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

OK, I locked all but one. The locked threads will drop off the page pretty quickly. If there's a poll on a locked thread, too bad.

Good sig muso

SOB

Aussie wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

Look at the multiple Threads commenced by DRAH on  the NBN this evening.  Surely, it has to stop.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


a few lefties on here wont like you bagging drah...he happens to be pansis hero...how dare you!..I am not even allowed to complain about his repetition posts...that take up a whole page...how dare you!

I will be interested to see if anyone bags you on this one..just letting you know there are more than one thread on  Baillieu already in pol/sux.

Mr Conservative wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

Some people really do have too much time on their hands. :)

you are not wrong.....

I am going to petetion FD to start a board for..

IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!

I really dont mind new threads on the same subject as long as its a different aspect...however when every thread turns into a slanging match of who can make the worst insult... then grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


what with the sob soap opera!!...CRIKEY... get a life.,

cods wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 5:56am:

Mr Conservative wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 9:31am: Some people really do have too much time on their hands. :) you are not wrong..... I am going to petetion FD to start a board for.. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME! I really dont mind new threads on the same subject as long as its a different aspect...however when every thread turns into a slanging match of who can make the worst insult... then grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr what with the sob soap opera!!...CRIKEY... get a life.,

Seriously you are the one thats talking about me.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 6:07am:

cods wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 5:56am: Mr Conservative wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 9:31am: Some people really do have too much time on their hands. :) you are not wrong..... I am going to petetion FD to start a board for.. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME! I really dont mind new threads on the same subject as long as its a different aspect...however when every thread turns into a slanging match of who can make the worst insult... then grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr what with the sob soap opera!!...CRIKEY... get a life., Seriously you are the one thats talking about me. SOB

no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU..


I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over....


I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all...

I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it..

cods wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 6:14am:

no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU.. I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over.... I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all... I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it..

Well said cods. Nearly every 3rd post is "go away troll". Gets a bit boring.

mantra wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

cods wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 6:14am: no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU.. I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over.... I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all... I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it.. Well said cods. Nearly every 3rd post is "go away troll". Gets a bit boring.

well it always bring the topic back to sob doesnt it???... telling someone to go away who obviously isnt going to go away achieves nothing but more of the same...I have noticed on other threads sob does the same thing.. it invariably comes back to him personally I dont know how he does it.

but its frustrating when it takes over the whole thread thats really all I am saying...I dont even want to talk about sob..lol.

cods wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

mantra wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:28am: cods wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 6:14am: no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU.. I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over.... I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all... I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it.. Well said cods. Nearly every 3rd post is "go away troll". Gets a bit boring. well it always bring the topic back to sob doesnt it???... telling someone to go away who obviously isnt going to go away achieves nothing but more of the same...I have noticed on other threads sob does the same thing.. it invariably comes back to him personally I dont know how he does it. but its frustrating when it takes over the whole thread thats really all I am saying...I dont even want to talk about sob..lol.

Are you STILL talking about me? Hahahaha!

SOB

mantra wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

cods wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 6:14am: no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU.. I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over.... I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all... I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it.. Well said cods. Nearly every 3rd post is "go away troll". Gets a bit boring.

Yeah well i only say it to trolls when they are trolling to take away their fun (which is mainly 1 particular troll) but go ahead and rant like its all my fault if that makes you happy.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

mantra wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:28am: cods wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 6:14am: no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU.. I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over.... I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all... I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it.. Well said cods. Nearly every 3rd post is "go away troll". Gets a bit boring. Yeah well i only say it to trolls when they are trolling to take away their fun (which is mainly 1 particular troll) but go ahead and rant like its all my fault if that makes you happy. SOB

Spot, you do know that the 'fun' for trolls is to get you to react or respond to them, don't you??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 10:11am: mantra wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 9:28am: cods wrote on Mar 7th, 2013 at 6:14am: no sob recheck evry thread you are on somehow its about YOU...I mean even your followers its about YOU.. I wasnt referring to yourself in particular.. but KJ comes in and you answer him... with the same thing every time...and its tit for tat...adnauseum...dont you guys get bored repeating the same thing over and over.... I was just adding to Mr conserves post  that was all... I am over nitpicking.and I think I am entitled to say so.... in the end I am on your side....as I dont think you start it.. but you do add to it.. Well said cods. Nearly every 3rd post is "go away troll". Gets a bit boring. Yeah well i only say it to trolls when they are trolling to take away their fun (which is mainly 1 particular troll) but go ahead and rant like its all my fault if that makes you happy. SOB Spot, you do know that the 'fun' for trolls is to get you to react or respond to them, don't you??

NOOOOOO he doesnt! ::) ::)

did you sign aussies petition gizmo?

'Uuuuuhhhhh!'.

(Fades away slowly.....face-palming).

Aussie, please refrain from starting multiple threads complaining about people starting multiple threads on the same topic.