tomhudson's Journal: A second troll outs himself

Update: 2004-08-14: According to the accepted rules of internet debate, OnLawn lost his part of the debate against same-sex marriage earlier today. Details are in this journal entry, along with the necessary links.

===============================================

A few months ago I helped identify the troll who was posting using 2 accounts, one claiming to be someone important in the BSD world. Well, now we've got another one who trolls using anonymous accounts (and people wonder why I make fun of ACs) :-)

Feel free to cut-n-paste / link to it to warn whoever else he trolls. Enjoy ...

On Lawn made this post was 1:45 PM http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=9941182

Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
by On Lawn (1073) on Wednesday August 11, @01:45PM (#9941182)

On Lawn has made it quite clear that he is against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians

Don't be disengenious. I read that thread and onlawn was arguing, you were slandering. And now you run away like madposter and start calling anyone who argues with you a bunch of bad names.

So stop posting as an AC

I'm a different AC than the parent post, and I have to say that there are some of us that simply do not see any merit in obtaining slashdot logins. How is that `hiding'? I could get a different login for each post I make if I wanted to. Logins for matubatorial jackasses who want their "friends" to come help them stroke themselves. Much like you are asking your friends to do with this JE. --

But he forgot to check off the "post anonymously" box...

Then he tried to explain it away with a second post at 2:24 PM, directly under it ...
... almost 3/4 of an hour later, when he realized that he had not posted the first comment anonymously. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117401&cid=9941580

Re:Interesting Poll (Score:2)
by On Lawn (1073) on Wednesday August 11, @02:24PM (#9941580)

s/I'm a different AC/What if I decided to post as a different AC/

s/Logins for matubatorial jackasses/Looking at you and madposter you would think that logins are only good for mastubatorial jackasses/

I was tempted to post that as an AC as you could probably tell, and I admit it. It would have been a grand statement as Tom seems to imply that being an AC is problematic to the arguments raised. But when the moral dillema was finally solved and I decided that the disengeniousness of not owning up to it was not worth it. However I submitted before I changed the a post from third to first person.

It's as lame as all his other arguments. He posed as someone else taking On Lawn's side, rather than have the guts to speak his own mind (such as it is). You'll see at least one other instance where he's done that in my journal, again criticizing me for "not having the courage to say what I think directly to him".

And this after I specifically told On Lawn that if he was going to dump homophobic crap into people's journals off-topic, that I would give him a chance to do it on-topic in mine. Gutless wonder.

s/On Lawn/astroturfer/g;

PS: As a courtesy, I told On Lawn that I would let him know when I was being sarcastic or making fun of him (so there would be no doubts). Hey, On Lawn, I'm doing both. Thanks for supplying the raw material to work with.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[tomhudson]

Hmmm ... I like "intellectual dishonesty" much better (me smacks self on head for not thinking of it :-).

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[On Lawn]

It would have been better for me to have proof-read the post when I decided against it, that is correct. But look at the post as if it was an AC. Even if it was me pretending to be an AC, as I had intended it to be when I wrote it.

"I'm a different AC." That is true.

"I read that thread and onlawn was arguing, you were slandering." That is also true.

"And now you run away like madposter and start calling anyone who argues with you a bunch of bad names." That is also true.

"I have to say that there are some

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[tomhudson]

More intellectual dishonesty from the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] himself.

You can stop selling it, as nobody's buying it.

And I replied to one of the stupid links that showed that you hadn't even RTFA (even though it's obviously a waste of breath).

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[On Lawn]

You can stop selling it, as nobody's buying it.

Heh, once again you take polls to decide facts but when you disagree with the majority you request the government stick it to them.

I don't mind what people think of that post. It is clearly me and I admit it. What you are trying to get people to buy is that I didn't mean to put my name on it, and when I wrote it I did intend on that. But did I really mistakenly not hit the "post anonymously" button? That is a far reaching claim. And one that you are once aga

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[peacefinder]

The question, of course, is larger.

You are well-known to have an AC that follows you around and posts supporting arguments, OnLawn. You and the AC tend to switch off roles in leading the attack, and supporting it; you post close together in time and far apart; you have slightly different writing styles and the AC has better spelling and grammar. You act much like two distinct persons, but also march very closely together. You and the AC both claim to be two distinct persons, but there is no way for your re

A simple solution?

[tomhudson]

Maybe this would be a suitable question for Ask Slashdot?

If OnLawn were to submit it, there would be no ethical concerns about violating his right to privacy.

The other AC, and other Conspiracy Theories

[SimianOverlord]

To my mind the AC account you mention is clearly Twirlip of the Mists. His style is unmistakable. Polemic, wordy, occasional italics mid sentence, the turn of phrase. For example (quoted from below):

There is nothing so repulsive and hypocritical as someone who wraps themselves up in the cloak of freedom while he abuses and oppresses, who waves his hands wildly in the name of equality while standing on the backs of others.

I could be entirely wrong about TotM. But I notice he has been mod bombed once or

Re:The other AC, and other Conspiracy Theories

[tomhudson]

I don't completely write them off (otherwise I would never reply to them). However, in cases where ACs are lying, the coward label fits.

I can see valid reasons for posting AC sometimes - for example, when you want to make a joke and you're afraid that some crack-head with mod points will "-1 Troll" you otherwise. (Mind you, I take the risk, because it is only a blog, after all :-) This way, people know who to blame when something like this happens (read my parent posting to see the context :-). [slashdot.org]

If you lo

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[On Lawn]

To see definitively that you sometimes write (but not necessarily post) as another persona lends support to those who theorize that you and the AC are one person...this is a blow to your status and credibility, I think.

That, of course, assumes I had status and credibility to begin with ;)

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[peacefinder]

Details, details. :-)

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[On Lawn]

Thanks. I can to the time for the crime, because I did want to do it. And I don't need to argue with what you assessment as you've come across here and in the other thread as being rather reasonable. It sounds reasonable to me (except for that I personally witnessed the events ;)

Again thanks.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[On Lawn]

On Lawn dealt with that deftly by writing as an AC, which TomHudson fears, yet putting his by line on it, as if that would change the content. It exposes the weakness in Tom's attack by example.

Good point. Excellent point, though I admit that it was not designed that way it certainly accomplishes that task. I wish I was that smart, but I will not turn down any serendipity on my path.

That Tom further exposes himself as gullible and witless in addition to "intellectually dishonest" by creating a JE to cal

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[tomhudson]

Still More Bullshit(tm) from the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org] :-)

I'm quite satisfied with the JEs in question, contrary to what the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org] implies. They show that many slashdotters do not share the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org]'s opinions.

As for the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org] 's anonymous post being a way to "proove anything", that doesn't wash, as he posted an "explanation" right underneath it that was more OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] BS.

As far as backing from any AC post, it's going to be the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Nobody's

Re:Intellectual dishonesty rather than trolldom

[On Lawn]

Still More Bullshit(tm) from the OnLawn Troll(tm) :-)

You start every post that way, you are like a broken record. Do you really think that such an invective has any sway? It is as if you are saying that if you didn't point it out your friends wouldn't even think that. Thanks for telling them how to think, Tom.

I'm quite satisfied with the JEs in question,

Yes, it is only a flesh wound :)

They show that many slashdotters do not share

Some. Many is a rather subjective term, and is over-reaching as usual

Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel

[Safety Cap]

with some C-4.

Re:Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel

[tomhudson]

Okay, you made me laugh :-)

Re:Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel

[On Lawn]

And how Tom keeps giving me more fish I just don't know ;)

Responce

[On Lawn]

But he forgot to check off the "post anonymously" box...

I forgot? Well it is one of two things isn't it. Either I forgot to check the post anonymously box, or I forgot to change the context to first person. You are asserting it as the former, but being an eye witness to the events I can say that is not the case.

almost 3/4 of an hour later, when he realized that he had not posted the first comment anonymously.

Think about this, which would I have realized first? That I posted it or that I didn't change

Re:Responce

[On Lawn]

And I will kindly point this post [slashdot.org] from an AC, also.

Or are you goint go accuse that AC of being myself also? Even though I could well use another login like Mad_Poster does (he admits it by the way), what about it makes you think it would be me?

Notice I haven't accused you of making up multiple logins, or any other astroturfing. It is an irrelevant point each time.

Does this really matter? Funny enough lets look at your post [slashdot.org] that I was responding to...

So stop posting as an AC - maybe then you might have

Re:Responce

[On Lawn]

You are right it doesn't. But he can't right tell people to look at the arguments and points made so far can he. Well he could, and would if they were as clear cut as his simplistic invectives make it seem.

Re:Response

[tomhudson]

I never make accusations without proof. Once I had the proof that you are the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org], and in fact DO use AC accounts to troll, I could certainly no longer give you the benefit of the doubt, now could I?

So you' re still the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org]

Re:Response

[On Lawn]

I never make accusations without proof.

LOL! You accused both ways here! First you said I never post as AC, and now you say I do. Which do you have proof on?

Never the less, show me one accusation with proof where even that proof draws the conclusion you claim it does. Just one. Is it going to be this tired old horse again? The one that you contradicted with your own words? Or can you with all the other points you've made be able to find just one. Just one.

Re:Response

[On Lawn]

Oh and Tom, be courageous and respond to *every* point in the grandparent post.

Don't ditch behind a subsequent post, you have some explaining to do [slashdot.org].

I'll also note that two JE's ago (when you started this lambasting routine) you also left the points unchallenged [slashdot.org] (no, calling it names is not challenging it.) You should respond to that point-by-point also (if you truely are not discouraged with the direction it went).

You are a dodger, and a coward. And this string of JE's where you get more off topic and tr

Re:Response

[tomhudson]

none of the visitors to your journal called you on this attempt to turn someone else's situation into a disgusting sideshow

... probably because they don't think she's disgusting :-)

For the record? She's hot. You're not.

I'm Honored

[the_mad_poster]

And now you run away like madposter and start calling anyone who argues with you a bunch of bad names.

I didn't call him a bad name. I just said he's an idiot [slashdot.org]. Because he is.

Come on, On Lawn! Why don't you try and goad me into an Iraq debate over this post now! I know you can do it!

Oh wait... your foed. So you have a -6 modifier on a +3 threshold and I don't click through to "replies under my threshold" unless I'm LOOKING for a troll, even if that means I can't see direct replies to my comments.

Oh well

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

I didn't call him a bad name. I just said he's an idiot.

Hey, you never did reply to this post in that JE [slashdot.org]. Yeah the JE where you accused me of goading you into an Iraq debate when you were the one that mentioned Iraq in the first place. Or were you too stupid to notice?

I rather like the Zirnike, Mad_Poster, Tom fan club I'm developing. Three people who show just how desperate they are to take me down.

Pardon me though if I get bored with the lot of you stroking each other.

Three people who cannot argue. T

Re:I'm Honored

[elmegil]

Three people who show just how desperate they are to take me down.

You do that just fine yourself, troll. Even if Sam had the lapse of judgement to apologize to you, it's been clear for a while that you're primarily a pot-stirrer. While you come up with some interesting sources from time to time, it doesn't change your basic MO of arguing your own point as both yourself and an AC and pretending you're different people.

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

You do that just fine yourself, troll.

This word "troll". Just what does it mean to you?

it's been clear for a while that you're primarily a pot-stirrer.

Pot-stirrer? Just how is that a bad thing?

You are a pot-stirrer, if all you mean is that you are someone who has an opinion and says it. You even defend your position (well by calling others troll that is, look Elmegil has joined the "lets call people trolls who disagree with me" club).

basic MO of arguing your own point as both yourself and an AC and

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

Sorry can't let this slight go either

Even if Sam had the lapse of judgement to apologize to you

Where did he do that? Sam was courageous, he stuck the argument out. You bailed mumbling something about "legislating morality" when you couldn't find one law that was not based on a moral code. You abandoned Sam just as you abandoned your argument too, he was the only one who made the course. I respect Sam told him so.

I just don't get you people and your charectar assasinations. I don't mind. I know what you

Re:I'm Honored

[tomhudson]

The proof is out there (cue X files music) about the OnLawn troll [slashdot.org]

I hope people actually click the link you provide in the parent post, read it, then click the parent links to see what I actually wrote.

Damn, just fed the trolls again :-(

This post was a test of the the OnLawn troll [slashdot.org] Warning System. If there had been an actual OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org], we can't tell*, because he LIKES posting as an AC to heap praise on himself and criticize the philistines who dare question his received wisdom :-).

*and we really don

Re:I'm Honored

[tomhudson]

Thanks for hopping in.

I can't (and won't - that would be feeding the trolls, and I'm trying to cut back on that :-) keep up with ALL the junk from (cue ominous voice and eerie music) the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] :-)

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

I can't keep up with ALL the junk

You are running scared. You are sooo scared. How can you be scared of me? Even if I pretend to be an AC? Is that too much for Tom the oppressive to handle?

It is too much for Mad Poster to handle. He's devoted five JE's to slandering me, and hasn't succeeded yet. You've devoted two now, one where you appealed to people who like men with breasts. And this one where you appeal to people without a brain cell firing in their little heads (look, MP and elmegil showed up!)

The n

Re:I'm Honored

[tomhudson]

I wrote

I can't keep up with ALL the junk

I notice The OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] at least doesn't attack my assessment of the quality of his posts == junk :-)

You are running scared. You are sooo scared

The OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] is a legend in his own mind. Why he started this BS about me being afraid of AC posters is beyond me ... why would anyone be afraid of any poster? It's just a blog (except, perhaps to the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] , as he has a religious agenda to push).

It is too much for Mad Poster to handle. He's devoted fi

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

The OnLawn Troll is the one who thinks post-op transsexuals are men with breasts, not me.

Heh, enough said.

Well I think its laughable. Another post wasted by Tom. Where he could have answered, he didn't. And he proves that he does have the time, but not the mental faculties.

Running scared, very scared. You are not? Prove me wrong. These are easy points for you to discuss. But you don't even acknowledge their existance. That is the position of someone singing in the corner hoping the big boogey troll, On

Re:I'm Honored

[tomhudson]

You have a STRANGE definition of fear. Oh, and you're still an asshole.

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

Do you always just sling accusations randomly? You read where we question what "pot-stirrer" is above so you think, "hey I should try that". Only you look like a poser doing so.

That you keep reaching for straws is a sure sign of your desperation and fear. That you continue to leave unanswered the posts mentioned in the "Running Tom" thread is further evidence. You claimed you don't have time to answer all of them, so you answer none of them? Run Tom run.

Re:I'm Honored

[tomhudson]

Unlike the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] some of us actually try to:

1. get some work done;
2. have a life outside the internet;
3. don't want to feed the trolls too much;
4. prefer to spend more of our time discussing interesting stuff with others;

But then there's the real reason - most of us have already figured out that OnLawn is a troll [slashdot.org] already, and we're getting BORED with it. It was funny for a while, but OnLawn the Troll [slashdot.org] is just getting too repetitive, childish, and predictable. *Yawn*

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

most of us have already figured out that OnLawn is a troll already

Most people don't care about your silly little "Oh No, On Lawn must made me look stupid, lets slander him" routine.

and we're getting BORED with it.

Well, if by BORED you mean "running scared" then I quite agree. Only bored doesn't mean that, it is (like the rest of your attempts) just another means to decieve. Its like the nerd walking away from a fight they started by saying, "I'm not interested in violence". Or, after getting the ever-

Sorry, but I have to do this

[freejung]

Elmegil, you are one of my oldest and dearest slashdot friends, and I hope you will forgive me for this, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

OL, don't think this means I'm jumping into this on "your side," because I have plenty to say to you too. I'll get to you in a moment, and I'll post a link to this post in reply to one of your comments just to make sure you read it.

I happen to be of the opinion that the AC and OL are different people but that they know each other in real life. The AC confir

Re:Sorry, but I have to do this

[elmegil]

But let's argue with him in a reasonable and mature manner

Given his frequent resorting to ad-hominem attacks (see his bs about me "runinng away" etc) I fail to see why I should treat him any better than he treats others.

Re:Sorry, but I have to do this

[freejung]

I fail to see why I should treat him any better than he treats others.

Because you're a better person than that, Elmegil, that's what I'm saying. That's all.

Re:Sorry, but I have to do this

[elmegil]

I fail to see how simply ignoring him as a troll doesn't fall into the "better person than that" response. Yes, I vented some earlier here, but at this point I don't plan to respond to any more of his political screeds anywhere for any reason.

Re:Sorry, but I have to do this

[freejung]

Of course that's legitimate. But I would prefer to try to understand where he's coming from and learn by debating him how to more effectively argue with others who share similar views. And by "effectively argue" I don't mean defeat, I mean achieve mutual understanding.

Like I said, I understand your frustration, and I don't blame you. I just think there are more constructive ways of dealing with the problem then this sort of flame-fest, that's all. Please understand that I hold you in the highest love and

peace, love, and dope

[freejung]

Actually, there's one more reason too. I happen to think that those of you defending same-sex marriage are on the side of tolerance, compassion, and understanding on this issue, and I think you think that too. If this is the case, you have to display more tolerance than your opponents. Given OL's position, it is understandable that he would resort to these tactics, isn't it? Put yourself in his shoes. Everything he believes in is being attacked on a society-wide basis. It is understandable that he should fe

Re:peace, love, and dope

[elmegil]

If you want to be on the side of peace, love, tolerance, and compassion, you have to behave that way, even when confronted by screaming rednecks armed with two-by-fours threatening to kill you.

While I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, I'm also human, and I also have (as admitted elsewhere) my own issues with anger management. If it makes me more sane to simply ignore him because he abuses debate tactics as far as he can, I think it's a reasonable response (yes, when he actually uses them, he's a masterful

Re:peace, love, and dope

[freejung]

issues with anger management

I do too, and I've lost patience with these guys before too. Please understand, I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to act as mediator, in the hope that there can be some sort of reconciliation. Perhaps that is impossible at this point. But I feel I should try.

some people can only be defended against by using tactics similar to their own

I must say, though, I disagree with this. That's why I consider myself a pacifist. By using their own tactics against them, you blur the dis

Re:peace, love, and dope

[elmegil]

Please understand, I'm not attacking you.

understood :-)

Re:I'm Honored

[tomhudson]

If I had seen this comment [slashdot.org] from the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] before, I would have certainly used it. Thanks for pointing it out.

The social experiments like legitimizing homosexuality is something that should be under the supervision of popular authority not mandated from the judge's bench.

In other words, the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] again advocates ignoring the law, human rights, or the Constitution and the process set up therein - just force everyone who disagrees to go along with the majority...

What a freak! Good thing t

Re:I'm Honored

[On Lawn]

Here is the comment in full.

For the record, same-sex marriage alters marriage in a very negative way. I do not endorse it and find the push for state sanctioning of it not very good.

An interesting note,

If you ask people if there should be gay marriage or not you'll get something like 54% against, 45% for. Something like that.

If you ask should same-sex couples be...

a) married
b) civil unions
c) no state recognition

You'll find that only about one if five actually endorse same-sex marriages. I am a 'c' st

Running Tom Watch...

[On Lawn]

Tom has just read this journal and posted only to stroke a friend [slashdot.org].

He has left the points in the following posts unanswered.

This [slashdot.org] post where I most directly answer the egregious claims he makes in this JE, is left unresponded to.

This [slashdot.org] comment where the AC points out how Tom is not only wrong, but this is indicative of a pattern of Tom running away from an arguments. Not one point made in that post has Tom responded to.

This [slashdot.org] post Tom can only muster some explative in response. He has yet to address any of

Re:Running Tom Watch...

[On Lawn]

Tom has now posted twice. Once where he expects us to beleive he doesn't have the time to answer me (but he has the time to slander and call names). The other times in responce to AC.

He's a man running scared and has (as usual) not shown that he has a brain cell firing in his puny little head. Run Tom run. Run scared. Run like the injured scared animal you are. I'll be here waiting for you to return.

Oh, and it does look like you and MP are very simular. Very simular indeed. Come on out of the closet and b

Re:Running Tom Watch...

[On Lawn]

Tom has once again shown how much time he has, but has not responded to any of the points brought up in the grandparent post that show his allegations are misplaced and in some cases false.

But, just to show what happens when Tom does try to answer points and just where he is devoting his time I will point out this thread [slashdot.org] discussing Tom's claim that homosexuals are helpless victims of their lifestyles (which is yet just another way Tom is a jerk).

Still Running

[On Lawn]

Tom has posted on slashdot, and is afraid of this JE (the one that he started so proud of). He has not answered any of the points in the begining post of this thread (the points that out him as running an overly-hostile and over-reaching charectar slander). Also he has abandoned the thread mentioned in the parent post where he tried his best to date to create supported arguments, but couldn't break out of his personalized and slanderous style and wound up lying to try call other's integrity in question.

Re:Still Running

[On Lawn]

I'm going to start calling Tom the energizer bunny. You just keep running and running and running...

Again he posts to show just how much time he doesn't have to respond to the many fatuous allogations he has made. This post was started as a diversion from a prurient freakish sideshow of some unsuspecting person. And that was started as a diversion from an JE he started as a diversion from an argument. Run Tom, run. It seems that is all you are good at.

No, just TOO successful :-)

[tomhudson]

First, I'd like to take a moment to publicly thank everyone who's added me to their friends list this last week.

Now, as to the accusations of "running away" ... The OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] just doesn't get that it would be phsically impossible some days to reply to all the messages I get. The math is simple.

For example, earlier this week, I cleaned up the messages before leaving work, went home, did all the normal stuff that working stiffs have to do when they're not at work, then checked to see if there was anythi

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[On Lawn]

it would be phsically impossible some days to reply to all the messages I get.

So you make replies saying that you don't have time to reply. ;) So after making a number of responses since the beggining of this thread, why hasn't any of them treated any of the points this thread is watching? Run Tom, run. You aren't fooling anyone.

when they were , if anything, TOO successful.

Oddly enough, you doesn't say how or why. I'd figure that a poll looking for people to join him in oogling a guy with breasts woul

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[tomhudson]

Once again, the OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] tries to tell another set of lies.

Did you know that the post he is discussing in this JE was already

almost two days old before he started to make hay from it?

The OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org]s second post (the one that started all this) was dated 2:24 PM August 11th

This JE was started 11:16 PM the same day - less than 9 hours difference.

Not "almost 2 days". Not even "almost 1 day". Not even "half a day". Even if we start counting from the OnLawn Trolls [slashdot.org] first post, we only add anothe

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[On Lawn]

This JE was started 11:16 PM the same day - less than 9 hours difference.

Quite right. I thought that was the day after for that JE to go south. It was less than a day, as you point out. Thank you for pointing out my error ;)

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[tomhudson]

This JE was started 11:16 PM the same day - less than 9 hours difference.

Quite right. I thought that was the day after for that JE to go south. It was less than a day, as you point out. Thank you for pointing out my error ;)

The OnLawn Troll [slashdot.org] doesn't understand that those journals are not only not going south - they're active as all heck:

1. 237 comments: More stuff on gay marriage, religion, etc..http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/79630 [slashdot.org]
2. 148 comments: New poll: Would you bang her?http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[On Lawn]

Tom has posted well over a dozen times, in the past few hours. Once again showing us that he lies, it is not a question of time at all. Tom still has yet to answer any of the posts he is running away from, let alone regain his ground on the posts that he is making.

For those that don't know yet, the two-day, nine hour thing was bait to expose a lie Tom was pushing [slashdot.org] at the time (and has since dropped when exposed). Knowing that Tom did have time, and that he didn't want to post unless he felt he could have so

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[On Lawn]

are not only not going south - they're active as all heck:

Yes, they are actively pointing out the holes in your position (I hesitate to call it argument) and your offensive behaviour.

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[tomhudson]

Today is Saturday. I have the day off :-)

OnLawn Looses Same-Sex Marriage Debate to Godwin's Law

Story here [slashdot.org]

Re:No, just TOO successful :-)

[On Lawn]

Hmm, interesting that you won't let me post in there. Afraid of something Tom?

Run Tom, run.

Just a few things about Godwin's law that you don't realize...

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

It goes on to say...

Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's Law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matt

Godwin's Law

[tomhudson]

For those of you who haven't noticed, I had the pleasure of being able to invoke Godwin's Law [slashdot.org] against the OnLawn TrolL [slashdot.org] a couple of hours ago in this discussion - More stuff on gay marriage, religion, etc... [slashdot.org]

I'm sure I'm not the only happy camper :-)

Re:Godwin's Law

[On Lawn]

Why do you think that will work? Your other diversions haven't. That you keep coming up with more shows your desperation better than I ever could.

Check out the "Running Tom" thread for more details. This guy is losing it, and I mean much more than the debate. He's starting to have "Bagdad Bob" moments.

Re:Godwin's Law

[On Lawn]

Heh, speaking of Bahgdad Bob moments, check out this article on Adequacy...

Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law! [adequacy.org]

Counsel for the tribunal: ... were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

Slobodan Milosevic: Objecting! What is it you are saying by meaning these "camps of concentration"? Eh huh? Are you taking me for wet ass pussy? I kill you!

CFTT: "Concentration camps" is a phrase in common usage, referring to inhumane mass civilian imprisonment environments, Mr Milosevic. The term da

What a bizarre site

[freejung]

Wow, that's a really far-out head trip, man. Thanks for the link. The amazing thing about it is that I agree completely with their stance on Godwin's law, but the rest of the site is just uberweird. Take this article on Communism [adequacy.org] for example, it reads to me like it was written by someone of a completely different species. (Actually, according to RAW, that is true: the guy in question is clearly Homo Neophobus, whereas I am definitely Homo Neophilus.) Truly a mind-expanding experience, no doubt about it. At

OK, I take it back

[freejung]

Upon further investigation, I've discivered that not only is this site uberweird, it's also ubercool. That's what freedom of speech looks like, in case anybody was wondering. These guys definitely made us look like a bunch of wussies.

For an example of how staggeringly cool this site was, check out their faq [adequacy.org], particularly their answer to the question of whether their site is a joke or not. The only possible answer is "mu."

Wow, thanks again, OL, for the link. I was right about one thing: it's a far out he

Re:OK, I take it back

[On Lawn]

Yeah Advocacy is probably best described as freedom of speech unfettered. Comparitively Slashdot is for sissies, but I like to think they are a bit more thoughtful than FARQ.