posted by lemur2 on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 01:57
Conversations In this post:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?375947

... the poster has a go at yours truly for modding him down. I don't do that, and I have no idea who actually did mod him down.

My point is, however, that no-one who has already posted on a given thread can mod down subsequent posts on that thread. Since I had already posted on the thread, this proves it was not I who modded down the post in question, yet the thread still carries the accusation that I did. Replying to nonsense like this post only gives it more air time.

Should there be a mechanism to request an apology for undeserved vitirol such as this post here on OSNews?
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
Comment by Bobthearch
by Bobthearch on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 02:41 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Well, I did vote him down. The first post for being disrespectful and name-calling, the second post for OT trolling.

My advice, let it go. It'll be off the page and forgotten in no time.

"...yet the thread still carries the accusation that I did."

Everyone who's anyone knows you couldn't have, for the reason you mentioned. Besides, no one would blame you if you did it. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Bobthearch
by lemur2 on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 05:31 in reply to "Comment by Bobthearch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, I did vote him down. The first post for being disrespectful and name-calling, the second post for OT trolling. My advice, let it go. It'll be off the page and forgotten in no time. "...yet the thread still carries the accusation that I did." Everyone who's anyone knows you couldn't have, for the reason you mentioned. Besides, no one would blame you if you did it. ;)


Reasonable advice. I do find however that whenever I make pertinent points, there will be much mudslining as a result. The better the point made, the more reliable and intense the mudraking response (often on unrelated or vague issues) that follows. It can be used as a fairly reliable indicator of how good (or otherwise) the original point was.

The purpose of the mudslinging and name-calling seems to be twofold: (1) to "score points" via an ad hominem argument, and (2) to deflect attention from the original point.

These shouldn't be effective debating tactics, but even so it doesn't hurt every now and then, just to clarify for casual readers, that this is what is going on.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Bobthearch
by Adam S on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 12:14 in reply to "RE: Comment by Bobthearch"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

He was voted down to -3. I wouldn't sweat it. For you, it will be history in a day or so, but he'll carry the downmods for awhile.

Reply Score: 1

Brilliant
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 4th Aug 2009 16:33 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

the poster has a go at yours truly for modding him down. I don't do that, and I have no idea who actually did mod him down.

My point is, however, that no-one who has already posted on a given thread can mod down subsequent posts on that thread. Since I had already posted on the thread, this proves it was not I who modded down the post in question, yet the thread still carries the accusation that I did.


Did you actually bother to read the post before jumping to that conclusion? My post didn't mention you - and it wasn't even in reply to you.

Replying to nonsense like this post only gives it more air time.


In that case, I suppose I should thank you for not only replying, but starting a whole new conversation which serves the sole purpose of replying.

Should there be a mechanism to request an apology for undeserved vitirol such as this post here on OSNews?


Buwahahaha, an apology?!? Grow a spine, Nancy. Have you offered an apology to slashdev, Ford Prefect, and OddFox for this little bit of idiocy?

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?374954

Reply Score: 2