Mr. Ambien Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (and trolling is against the rules/law here...keep that in mind) Cool story, where's the trolling? You didn't address any of the points you quoted? The school reported her..and action was taken. That's the gist of this...in that the school is not working in the best interest of the child. Likely, kids who'd been on vacation need to get caught up and assigned home work, etc and I'd suspect teaching got difficult as a result. I've seen that end of it too...where some teachers have to work extra hard with kids who fall behind. It's not about the kids and what's best for them at all...but it should be. How does the school do what's in the best interest of a child that takes significant time off, without the parent responding to their letters? I'm wondering what kind of magic you think they do. No, what you do is trolling, straight out, straight up and obvious to everyone. Funny how others expressing the same position are not treated the same way. And that is obvious to everyone reading, as well. Feel free to report my posts then, whichever one(s) you claim are trolling. It looks like you just have a terrible time handling people who criticize your views, which is not exactly a surprise to posters here either. Obviously you contribute very little to these forums on this name either, so to prevent myself from getting banned by telling you off, as it needs to be done, I'll just block you on this name too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Cool story, where's the trolling? How does the school do what's in the best interest of a child that takes significant time off, without the parent responding to their letters? I'm wondering what kind of magic you think they do. Feel free to report my posts then, whichever one(s) you claim are trolling. It looks like you just have a terrible time handling people who criticize your views, which is not exactly a surprise to posters here either. Obviously you contribute very little to these forums on this name either, so to prevent myself from getting banned by telling you off, as it needs to be done, I'll just block you on this name too. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Thank you. Lol he really should just block everyone then he'll always be right, as he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Lol he really should just block everyone then he'll always be right, as he wants. He doesn't actually block anyone... tough to see reactions when you've blocked people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 He doesn't actually block anyone... tough to see reactions when you've blocked people Actually, my block list is in the link in the profile (needs to be updated with today's addition). And for one reason or another IPboard hasn't fixed the problem with being able to see posts made by blocked people when they're quoted by people not on your block list. So.. not as effective as you'd like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Yeah, no. It's totally trolling. Presenting counter-arguments is one thing. Pigeonholing people, patronizing people, sarcastic or insulting comments towards people on a consistent basis. Very much so trolling. Interestingly enough, Mr A, the childhood trauma you faced losing a parent could indeed be a contributing factor to the uh...."personality" we're seeing here from you today. I hope the boy in the article is able to overcome this ordeal without adopting the uh...."personality" that you did. Anyways, leniency should be shown, a mother has the right to determine what's right for her child, and so forth. I've said my piece. #blocked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Just noticed a comment in another thread that I was in...found it interesting that you don't apply it here as well. Let's apply this to parents in the raising of their children, shall we? Because no one is being hurt if a child isn't in school...except, possibly the child. Let the family manage on their own? Agree. No sense in having rules for no reason. ......seems to me a risk worth letting the ________ manage on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Yeah, no. It's totally trolling. Presenting counter-arguments is one thing. Pigeonholing people, patronizing people, sarcastic or insulting comments towards people on a consistent basis. Very much so trolling. Interestingly enough, Mr A, the childhood trauma you faced losing a parent could indeed be a contributing factor to the uh...."personality" we're seeing here from you today. I hope the boy in the article is able to overcome this ordeal without adopting the uh...."personality" that you did. Anyways, leniency should be shown, a mother has the right to determine what's right for her child, and so forth. I've said my piece. #blocked Actually, I find being able to maintain a logical disposition in the face of a potentially emotional matter to be a far better trait than just bandwagoning on overreaction. Obviously people prefer the easy road far from introspective reasoning. The kid will be fine, they won't lose their mother. All this blowing hot air about "oh noes will the kid be fine" is silly. It's quite amazing to me how few people even recognize the irresponsibility on the side of the parent, of those few who even bothered to check into what the other side of the story was. It looks to me like the parent is a far greater threat to their own child being fine than the "school" is, or the government. The primary blame here goes on the parent for not informing and responding to the school to ensure such a lengthy absence is okay, particularly since it encompasses at least parts of two school years. Society doesn't stop functioning, and neither do laws, just because someone has a personal problem. And before someone says, yet again, that this is unwavering and impersonal, in light of the fact that she will likely not be sentenced to jail (even though she would certainly deserve it), I'd say it is quite lenient and personable. They should at minimum force her into a session where they antiquate her with the laws so she doesn't pull a move like this again and then wonder why she's now in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Actually, I find being able to maintain a logical disposition in the face of a potentially emotional matter to be a far better trait than just bandwagoning on overreaction. Obviously people prefer the easy road far from introspective reasoning. The kid will be fine, they won't lose their mother. All this blowing hot air about "oh noes will the kid be fine" is silly. It's quite amazing to me how few people even recognize the irresponsibility on the side of the parent, of those few who even bothered to check into what the other side of the story was. It looks to me like the parent is a far greater threat to their own child being fine than the "school" is, or the government. The primary blame here goes on the parent for not informing and responding to the school to ensure such a lengthy absence is okay, particularly since it encompasses at least parts of two school years. Society doesn't stop functioning, and neither do laws, just because someone has a personal problem. And before someone says, yet again, that this is unwavering and impersonal, in light of the fact that she will likely not be sentenced to jail (even though she would certainly deserve it), I'd say it is. They should at minimum force her into a session where they antiquate her with the laws so she doesn't pull a move like this again and then wonder why she's now in court. Hmmm.....regarding that 'research' thing about the school not being aware of the death of this child's father: The mother-of-five, who met David Cameron as she campaigned for stricter drink-driving sentences in the wake of her partner's death, said the school was aware of the circumstances but did not agree that her son should have been kept at home. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tracey-fidler-mother-could-be-jailed-for-allowing-her-son-to-miss-school-after-his-father-died-a6670631.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 The kid will be fine? How, on earth, do you know? Have you met the kid? Is every kid the same? The kid MAY be fine if this is handled correctly. Each kid is different and there isn't a one size fits all way to deal with them. Or rules that can cover that in times of tragedy and loss. You're actually just displaying how unqualified you are to discuss this topic through blanket statements like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Deb and Mr. A get in a discussion. Feelings get hurt. Mr. A gets banned. Deb is a mod. Coincidence? I think not. The guy has the unpopular opinion amongst the outraged people in here and can back up said opinion really well. Apparently that means he's a troll. Well, it worked out for you all. I'm sure y'all are dancing a jig. I guess the old Soviet political structure that silenced the dissent had a nice ring to it for the people in "power" in here. I thought this was a DISCUSSION board. Have fun with the one-sided thoughts on everything as it seems people who want to debate get falsely accused of trolling and then banned. It's absurd. Is this considered trolling? Am I getting banned now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Deb and Mr. A get in a discussion. Feelings get hurt. Mr. A gets banned. Deb is a mod. Coincidence? I think not. You are well on your way to following Mr. A out the door as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 You are well on your way to following Mr. A out the door as well. ^^ I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industrious1 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Hmmm. Although I rarely (if ever) agreed with Ambien, I don't think this particular thread should have led to him being banned. He represented a side of an argument that wasn't popular and ruffled a few feathers doing it. In life that is often how these debates move forward and without his opinion, this forum as a whole is lesser because of it. This won't be a shared feeling with many folks because I understand Ambien was disliked by many....but that is hardly a reason to act out against them in such a final way. The day we start picking and choosing which opinions people should be subjected to is the day a small sliver of liberty is lost, even if it is on something as seemingly unimportant as a hockey forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 ^^ I rest my case. You are headed down a dangerous path my friend. If I have ever learned anything on these forums it is that if you ever cross Deb on a topic which she is emotionally invested in, it will not end well for you. Mr. A probably knew but he thought he could toe the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Hmmm. Although I rarely (if ever) agreed with Ambien, I don't think this particular thread should have led to him being banned. He represented a side of an argument that wasn't popular and ruffled a few feathers doing it. In life that is often how these debates move forward and without his opinion, this forum as a whole is lesser because of it. This won't be a shared feeling with many folks because I understand Ambien was disliked by many....but that is hardly a reason to act out against them in such a final way. The day we start picking and choosing which opinions people should be subjected to is the day a small sliver of liberty is lost, even if it is on something as seemingly unimportant as a hockey forum. I didn't always agree with him either but I respected the way he could debate his side of the argument. He could be a bit of a smart *ss sometimes, but a lot of people on here are. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe something else happened in a private message or something. I don't know, but it sure looks suspicious. If he did, in fact, get banned/suspended or whatever for trolling, that is just ridiculous as he wasn't trolling. He was merely arguing his side of the case seemingly better than the other side. And I agree with him here because he's right about a lot of people getting outraged right off the bat. Not just in this thread but others as well. Then when he points it out and argues his case, people automatically accuse him of trolling. It's like an automatic defense when they are unable to counter his points. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 You are headed down a dangerous path my friend. If I have ever learned anything on these forums it is that if you ever cross Deb on a topic which she is emotionally invested in, it will not end well for you. Mr. A probably knew but he thought he could toe the line. What?? So you're saying because Deb is a mod you can't disagree with her and have a discussion? I've seen her disagree with plenty of people in threads and no one got banned. Are we supposed to walk on eggshells with mods in here? Is that what you're saying? What you just said is that if you have a debate with Deb that she has a strong opinion about you run the risk of getting banned. Are you saying that she has special rights in her because she's a mod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I didn't always agree with him either but I respected the way he could debate his side of the argument. He could be a bit of a smart *ss sometimes, but a lot of people on here are. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe something else happened in a private message or something. I don't know, but it sure looks suspicious. If he did, in fact, get banned/suspended or whatever for trolling, that is just ridiculous as he wasn't trolling. He was merely arguing his side of the case seemingly better than the other side. And I agree with him here because he's right about a lot of people getting outraged right off the bat. Not just in this thread but others as well. Then when he points it out and argues his case, people automatically accuse him of trolling. It's like an automatic defense when they are unable to counter his points. I don't get it. I agreed with him as well. I was just smart enough to stay out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I agreed with him as well. I was just smart enough to stay out of it. And that's what I'm talking about when I say the Soviet style of silencing dissent. You can't speak up about your opinion or run the risk of getting silenced. You should absolutely be able to argue against anyone in here. That's the whole purpose of a DISCUSSION forum, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 What?? So you're saying because Deb is a mod you can't disagree with her and have a discussion? I've seen her disagree with plenty of people in threads and no one got banned. Are we supposed to walk on eggshells with mods in here? Is that what you're saying? What you just said is that if you have a debate with Deb that she has a strong opinion about you run the risk of getting banned. Are you saying that she has special rights in her because she's a mod? All I know is that Deb is an emotional person and I stay out of her way due to fear that I may end up the same way as Ambien did today. I am not saying she is a poor mod or anything of that sort. It might be that my fears are unfounded but I don't believe that to be the case. I may even be wrong about her but situations like this thread only reinforce that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.