Originally Posted by joerg_rw

[...]
I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here[...]
jOERG

Originally Posted by misterc

remind me, who is Woody, to be the authority everyone (or only you?) has to comply with?!?

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

remind me, who are you to suggest I'm an idiot who tries to comply with other notions being unable to come up with and defend my own?!?

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

[...]
I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here[...]
jOERG

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

[...]
I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here[...]
jOERG

Originally Posted by misterc

let me rephrase then...
who is Woody that we should comply with his opinion.

Originally Posted by misterc

you will hopefully agree that your post quoted (again) above seems to imply only you, not me, or the community in general, does it, now?

Originally Posted by misterc

[...]
but admittedly, my post is somewhat sarcastic, so just to make things totally & perfectly clear...

• i know damn well who Woody is, have been having endless discussion about the sex of angels like arguments long enough on TMO for that, thanks
• (my point) what makes Woody's opinion the rule and law on TMO?

Originally Posted by misterc

EDIT: having scrolled back on this thread some, i come to realize that what you mean by

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

according to some wise man (you're free to dig his name up in citations db):

Code:

It is irrelevant how plausible or how backed up by facts an infamation is to make the masses believe it. Really all it needs is constant repetition so they hear it every day for weeks and months.

I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here, and the only logical consequence is to let not a single false statement, lie, or diffamation get by unanswered.
So NO, not answering to trolling that has potential to give others a false idea is not an option.

is simply that you agree with Woody's statement that this referendum won't change anything else as far as referendums are concerned
and, possibly, that rejecting this referendum may doom MO...

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

let me put it again in maybe even stronger words then: who are you to suggest anybody should comply with anybody's opinion here?
Sorry to disappoint you here, I won't agree on anything like that. It's entirely you who's making up that BS.

[edit] And no, my subsentence "I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here" was strictly meant regarding the bonmot about defamations and how to cope with them which I quoted imediately before that very sentence, implying that it's what I (and also woody) think is the right way to handle trolling and defamations. I honestly can't think how anybody could disassemble my few sentences in such a weird manner and put every subsentence into relation to some post of 2 pages back or even in another thread. Is that how you phrase your statements? I try to phrase mine in a sense of continuity, where each sentence is somehow related to the previous one more likely than to random other stuff.
/j

Sechs goldene Regeln
1. Gute Kommunikation bedient sich einer bildhaften Sprache mit emotional überzeugenden Bildern.
2. Sie ist selbstredend glaubwürdig.
3. Sie verfällt nicht in den Reflex, die Überbringer unangenehmer Botschaften zu verunglimpfen.
4. Sie versucht auch nicht abzuwiegeln, etwa unter dem Verweis auf verfahrenstechnische Schweigepflichten, die jede Auskunft verböten.
5. Sie unterstellt der Gegenseite keine unlauteren Motive.
6. In brenzligen Situationen lässt sie die Logik ihrer Argumente zugunsten der Situationspsychologie zurücktreten.

Originally Posted by misterc

[...]
case in point, i started this exchange with good intention, trying to calm things down and end up... not caring any more.
but hey, i'm only trolling, right?

Originally Posted by qwazix

Guys, you are reading too much into each other's posts.