Hiro Protagonist

Maybe they should have used the 'ban bossy' message as being something attributed to both boys and girls. Like don't be bossy, be a leader to both genders. That would have been a better message. And not single out one gender as being bossy (girls) and comparing it to leadership with another (boys) when they say the exact same thing. The fact is that they don't actually give an example of that same exact thing. It's deceptive hyperbole. But then I guess it would come across as another type of anti-bullying encouragement building site and drown in the hundreds of other anti-bullying encouragement building websites if it was aimed at both genders. Easier to aim it at one gender and get the emotional responses that it's received.

Alan, some points for you to take in. It's not a thesis. Tick one on failure at critical thinking. And many more ticks on failure at critical thinking. I don't have the time to list them all. Yeah 'cool story bro'. How about using that critical thing? No? Okay. Go ahead with your long winded straw man arguments, irrelevancies and red herrings.

Well here's a tip for you. Read my post that says “bossy” and “leader” aren’t the same thing, by any stretch. We can’t swap one for the other because they aren’t synonymous. So a bossy female and male leader aren't the same thing. The same as a bossy male and female leader aren't the same thing. Similarly, a bossy female and a female leader aren't the same thing. Glad I could clear that up for you. And Oerwinde disagrees with my assertion? Where? If anything Oerwinde agrees with my assertion that bossy should be linked to both girls and boys.

One of the problems with the site is “bossy” and “leader” aren’t the same thing, by any stretch. We can’t swap one for the other because they aren’t synonymous. Rarely is a bossy person ever a good leader. Bossy girls or boys aren’t always leaders. A good leader is one that communicates the paths to achieve the goal in an articulate manner, while establishing teamwork via a coherent vision. In other words, when the leader comes across as knowledgable, the team becomes confident. When the leader appears to be ignorant while demanding others do as they say, they are seen as arrogant bullies. And this is not just at work, but also in schools. Male or female, many kids go their entire lives without ever being called “bossy” and they become bosses. Really good ones.

I wouldn't be calling it a thesis. It's far from a thesis as you can get.

Personally, I find the site discriminatory. I've seen many male bossy supervisors and managers in my career and they were not being assertive. No idea why bossy and female seem to be linked on the site and no mention of bossy males.

Bruce brings up a good point. I don't think banning the word 'bossy' is enough. We should ban any and all words that anybody may take offense to. In fact, any words I don't like needs to be banned starting with any responses to this post. I await our land of unicorns and rainbows with hive like minded people.

I enjoyed Gravity. It made me think about if I ever wanted to go into space, do I really want to? Because I felt it captures quite well how dangerous it is in space. I was on the edge of my seat. Also the filming of it is something I'd never seen. I also liked how the camera would pan in and out of the space suit's visor and you see what the actors were seeing, and then pan out of the space suit through the visor and see their face. Some great techniques.

I haven't seen a 3D movie at all.

Writing can mean many things. Does it mean that PoE should have x in its writing because BG2 did? Considering nearly half the races you play aren't romanceable, the writing/romance isn't there in BG. Play a Halfling? Nope. Play a dwarf? Nope. What about a Gnome? Nope. I've always played Halflings in at least my first or second play through. Where's the romance dialogue? Not there. So it would be false advertising to sell BG2 having romances when some of those races don't have romances. You would have to put a disclaimer on it. Romances but only for these types of races. Other races are excluded. Even the box doesn't mention romances. It was never a selling point in the first place.

Stop with the straw-man tactics Bruce. Of course I have an interest in the homophobic laws in Uganda. It's why I was following this thread. Also, how do you know I have never shown any interest in any social justice issues that you've raised? Do I have to reply to a thread to show I show an interest? Is not reading a thread enough? Just because I haven't responded to a thread doesn't mean I'm not taking an interest in it. Also, I don't know what your hang up is with RPGCodex. It seems you bring this up on every thread (exaggeration I know but it seems to becoming the norm). I'm not a member of that forum and I don't need to bring up the Codex or other forums to know that there's some lunatics on the internet. If the Codex is the worse you've seen, then you must live a sheltered life which can be a good thing. You're not subjected to stuff that you aren't comfortable to see. Again, that may be a good thing for you. Because there's some really horrible stuff out there and you haven't even scratched the surface. That's what the internet is or what it seems to be. A free for all - good and bad. And I clearly said what I said about your comments. Also, you're being very evasive and still NOT refuted the news article I linked. How about being honest and state the facts instead of dancing around the issue. Is it some sort of national pride, that you take issue with people highlighting bad stuff with South Africa, like stuff that happens in the news link I quoted? Because I've noticed a trend with you highlighting the good stuff in South Africa but always getting defensive and downplaying the bad things that happen there. Oh no, it's not common at all... Seriously? I wonder if this sort of stuff in South Africa is happening in Uganda. One can only hope it's not.

First. can you tidy up your post please? You've been asked before to avoid mutli-quoting as it becomes a mess when you're quoting multiple posts within multiple posts. I'm not trying to find an oblique point at all. I was responding to your downplaying of AGX-17's post. I didn't even see that part of AGX-17's post until you quoted him and tried to downplay what was happening in South Africa. AGX-17 made an offhand comment, you've also taken it off topic and I'm responding to your posts. Also, just because I have never heard of a term before and go and do some research doesn't have anything to do with lack of credibility or lack of knowledge on the subject. In the last hour or so, I did some reading up on various sites and studies that have been quoted, to get different accounts of what it is. Also you say it's not common? Everywhere I've read (news reports, studies, etc) state the opposite. You say the perpetrators are brought to justice when they are caught. I guess the operative word here is 'when' because it seems according to a lot of reports and studies, most are never caught due to various (sometimes eyebrow raising) reasons. You attack me about credibility and lack of knowledge (an ad hominem attack) but don't refute the news article. There seems to be an issue with lack of credibility Bruce, and it's not me.

I'd never heard the term before. After doing a google search and from news reports, it doesn't seem to be uncommon. Quite the opposite. I'm not sure why you're downplaying this. I'm appalled by just reading one story that was reported last month and this practice continues in South Africa.

So do you accept there are good trolls? Maybe I am misreading the map, but I don't think at this point he, I and most of the rest, regardless of our positions care about this topic. But for the sake of the discussion, this my last shot at any contribution here and even tough it is blunt, I hope it will received as constructive. You obviously care to continue with it. Using retard is not a good example and as I said only works against you. And you're now saying a good troll is still a troll? As in a good retard is still a retard. Thank you very much because some people don't accept that a good troll is still a troll, and are trying to call it something else. eg. satire. This is something we can agree on. And with the Leeroy Jenkins troll thread. I do find it hard to believe someone could be offended by it.

Strangely enough one of the parts of SGU I did remember before watching it again were the descendants. I didn't realise that was near the end of Season 2. And as you said, just when it was getting interesting, the drones come back. And yes, the gates only being able to dial a short distance didn't make sense.

Finished SGU. Realised while watching Season 2, I vaguely remembered all the episodes.

So do you accept there are good trolls?

Also, is alan still being evasive and ignoring my questions?

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate In fact I would that argue that someone who insists he is being unquestionably objective so much doesn't have the intention of being truly objective uh no. You'd rather take the stance that all trolls are made by horrible people? That you don't consider the possibility that there are good trolls? I don't think that's a good quality to have.

I don't see how I'm being defensive about the characterisation of what a Troll means. And I'm certainly not feeling guilty about something. I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do. I'm of the view that you can have both good and bad trolls. That a troll can create a good troll thread on a forum. Do you have a problem with someone having an objective view of what a troll is? Because that's what I'm trying to do. You seem to be taking issue with this objective stance I'm taking and wrapping it up as being an apologist for trolls in general and feeling guilty about something.

Considering you haven't shown what definition you're using in this thread, it's a little disingenuous to cite a definition and not share it with the people in this thread. Where did anyone say "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?" I did a quick search through this thread and couldn't find who said that. Also, who has said you should have faith that good trolling exists? This reeks of a straw-man tactic. Considering I've cited one example of a troll thread on the WoW forums, do you accept there is good trolling?

I don't see anyone changing the definitions except for you and others who will wrap up a good troll up as something other than a troll. Are you compromising on a good troll? Because I already posted a good troll with Leeroy Jenkins. At least one person in this thread has changed their stance that there can be good trolls. I wasn't going to let you off so easily. Interesting that you now deleted what you said in your post. And I already responded to Alan's post. Perhaps you should read it? And no problem with me growing a thicker skin. I'm not easily offended as others, especially others who are easily offended in this very thread.

Thanks. Your comment seems to fit the below definition. Trolling. : A Troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[

No, for the sake of argument, I won't call them retards. Changing the definition of troll to retard to suit your viewpoint doesn't help your case. Your definition works against you, not for you. Also, clearly you don't know what I mean by religious debate. And it has nothing to do with religion.

Considering the Leeroy Jenkins thread is a troll thread on the WoW forums and it's what I was alluding to, it would take a lot to argue that it was an inflammatory troll to upset people. It certainly isn't satire. I don't see the creation of the Leeroy Jenkins thread on the WoW forums as subjective as 'what is art'. It was a troll thread created to troll the forums. And it's entered pop culture because of it. Was it inflammatory? Did it upset people? Did it disrupt the WoW forums? Was it a deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response? I would answer No to the first one. I couldn't say for the second question because people react differently and I wouldn't know everybody's response and reactions to the thread. And the last two questions, I would answer with a Yes in a good way.