mi se spune halebardul

[Pitbull]

Misto avataru'.

[redmen]

:shock: nu inteleg
ce-am eu a face cu concursul ala si premiile lui?
probabil ma confunzi.

Eram eu baut aseara,dar mesajul tot lu` Neupto i se adresa

[halebardul]

asta am inteles.

doar ca: neupto scrisese o povestire cu halebardul, o postase pe "mi se spune halebardul" iar tu ii spuneai sa nu mai posteze nimic pana nu ia premiul. Ca si cum ce scria el pe aici i-ar fi influentat sansele la concursul ala, si nu vedeam legatura.
Missunderstanding, clar.

Probabil ca-i spuneai sa nu o mai ia razna prin toate topicele cum face el de obicei si sa supere pe toata lumea.
Altfel, povestirea lui mi-a placut. De fapt amandoua, si asta de aici si aia din concurs.

Misto avataru'.

Multam, Sire!

[StefanDo]

ok, am inteles toti, led-ze-pencil e halebardul
topic inchis

[Pitbull]

Mai lasä-l, cä nu face nici un räu, ne zbenguim si noi. E unul din topicurile alea gen "va rog sa aberam", sau "aici puteti intreba orice" - si-n fond, e la condica, unde-i loc cam de orice, în limitele bunei-cuviinte.

[Floydman]

nu iti taseaza coloana, coiful ala? pare mai greu decat greutatea restului :shock:

[halebardul]

Nu.

[gionloc]

:cool:
mi se parea mie ca te cunosc de undeva!
asadar tot tu esti, Pitbull!







m-am tot uitat la coifu si la scutu tau. imi pareau cunoscute. dar abia ieri-alataieri te-am cam ghicit. acu m-a trimis pitbull incoa'. si e clar!
bine ti-ai schimbat Ledu da naravu ba !

[Pauline Kael]

Deci stelele din avatar sunt de la leduri.Cica sunt persoane diferite,cui ce-i pasa?Pit e mai pasional.

[Led-Ze-Pencil]

Comit aceasta “ilegalitate” de a vorbi prin clona pentru a va cere scuze ca a trebuit sa cititi injuraturile mele. Evident, suspectului nu-i cer scuze, oferta ramane valabila.
Si pentru a va ruga frumos sa incetati cu prostia cum ca eu il venerez pe als, ca e un zeu pentru mine, ca ii sunt slujitor supus si alte aberatii puse in circulatie de inteligenta de drosophila a suspectului. Daca considerati ca aveti mai multa minte ca el, atunci folositi-o. E adevarat, am militat pentru intoarcerea lui pe forum si asta doar pentru ca e o autoritate in materie si am considerat ca face bine comunitatii sa aiba inca un critic cu nume. Eu si faptele mele bune pentru forum! Nu il cunosc, nu ma cunoaste, si nici nu-s fan als. Cum am mai spus, il prefer pe Gorzo. Iar als ca si forumist ma supara ca scrie cu prescurtarile alea outdated pe care le foloseau adolescentii pe mirc prin ’98, ma supara ca se lasa antrenat in conflicte si le lungeste la infinit in loc sa le taie scurt, cu o simpla lovitura, ma supara ca rareori isi da interesul sa comunice mai pe larg tot ce stie considerand ca n-are cu cine (ceea ce e si nu e adevarat, discutabil) si ma supara ca desi se pare ca ii place in lumea asta virtuala parca incearca dinadins sa-si faca viata grea.
Si daca risc o prelungire a bannarii intrand pe clona ca sa spun asta, ma credeti ca e chiar adevarat, da?

Cat despre bannare, mi se pare corect sa nu am regim preferential, dar bine era daca se intervenea din timp. Forumul asta e ca un oras fara politie. Mai trece din cand in cand un echipaj din judetul vecin dupa stingerea conflictelor, face ordine la repezeala mai mult sau mai putin arbitrar, dupa cum pricepe el ca au fost lucrurile. E vestul salbatic. Bannarea suspectului mi s-a parut suspect de blanda, sunt cel putin 10 postari de-ale lui unde incalca regulamentul. Si in general nu inteleg la ce bun sa ai pe forum un troglodit ca el, total inutil, incult, prost, agresiv, zero in materie de film, cu idei putine dar fixe. Raman la parerea mea ca trebuia bannat definitiv. Unde-s vremurile cand se facea asta? Si din cate am inteles, pentru motive mult mai putin grave.

Si inca ceva, ce nu am apucat sa raspund ieri: de ce i-am luat apararea lui als, si lui Pitbull nu, impotriva lui Ambra Blu.
1 – e de datoria mea sa ii apar pe toti?
2 – Pitbull se apara foarte bine
3 – aveam treaba si am raspuns in graba unde am apucat
4 - suspectul ma ataca si pe mine
5 – schimbul de politeturi Pitbull – Ambra avea totusi un nivel, era fondat mai mult pe ironii, iar cu putin sadism as spune ca avea si ceva savoare (desi in substanta atacul era josnic) – dar interventiile suspectului care repeta cu obstinatie doar un singur lucru (ca als e un c… si eventual ca eu ma inchin la zeul als) jigneau si cea mai sumara inteligenta. Trebuia intervenit.

In rest sa stiti ca-s toate bune si frumoase in viata reala, ceea ce va doresc si voua.
Ma distreaza cu cata sarguinta incearca illotempore sa anime topicele. ☺ Un spectacol!

Mai vedem cine si daca mai revine pe forum, Dr. Led-Ze-Pencyll sau Mr. Halebard.
Salutari.

[illotempore2002]

bine. atunci nu le mai anim deloc.

nu e nici o pierdere.

[halebardul]

Trimis la reeducare timp de 3 zile, iata ce am studiat in sala de lectura de la zuhaus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

Flame wars

When the discussion becomes heated and sides do nothing more than complain and not accept each other's differences in point of view, the discussion degenerates into what is called a flame war. To flame someone means to go off-topic and attack the person rather than their opinion. Likely candidates for flame wars are usually religion and socio-political topics. Threads which degenerate to a level below the forum moderators are usually locked but when the problem is considered contagious they are deleted.

When a topic that has degenerated into a flame war is considered akin to that of the forum (be it a section or the entire board) spam and flames have a chance of spreading outside the topic and causing trouble, usually in the form of vandalism. Some forums (commonly game forums) have suffered from forum wide flame wars almost immediately after their conception, because of a pre-existing flame war element in the online community. Many forums have created devoted areas strictly for discussion of potential flame war topics that are moderated like normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

Flaming (Internet)

Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. In some cases, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be called "trolls". Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject.

Some equate flaming with simply letting off steam, though the receiving party may be less than pleased. Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame—it may be hostile, for example—but it is not a flame if its author seriously intends to advance the discussion. The word "flaming" is also sometimes used for long, intensive and heated discussions, even though insults do not occur.

Although the trading of insults is as old as human speech, flaming on the Internet, like many other online 'actions,' started in the Usenet hierarchies (although it was known to occur in the WWIVnet and FidoNet computer networks as well). Recently, several online forums have actively encouraged flaming amongst fellow posters.

Causes of flaming

There is no general agreement on the causes of flaming, although a recent study has led to somewhat conclusive evidence. Some common hypotheses are:

* Some forms of flaming can be attributed to deeper social or psychological weaknesses, probably from lack of exposure to a broader spectrum of disciplines that result in self-control issues.
* It is noted that Internet users are more likely to flame online than insult others in the real world, as the latter can lead to embarrassment and physical altercations, which online "anonymity" can avoid.
* Those guilty of flaming may justify it as getting even for having had their feelings hurt initially, so they see it as doing justice by inflicting serious emotional distress on another.

* Some flaming may be done with no stronger motive than to get a reaction from the target of the flame, or for the feeling of power or moral freedom of causing emotional distress to another.

[halebardul]

Si, intr-o maniera cinica, un site care te invata cum sa fii sau cum sa reactionezi la un flamer
http://www.boredreader.com/links.htm#guide

A Guide to Flaming
by Dagny Scott

Flaming is a useful skill on the internet which can serve to:

* Demolish newsgroups and mailing lists!
* Increase the stress levels in many peoples lives! AND....
* Help you find an online scapegoat at a safe distance from you in real life to take out all your problems on!

Techniques for Flaming

Technique #1: Make it personal!!

A good way to make an effective attack on someone is to take any comment you disagree with and turn it into a personal attack on yourself. For example, if a person disagrees with one of the viewpoints of your chosen political party, say "As a member of the (INSERT IGNORE political party here) Party, I object to the fact that you think I am an uneducated, worthless, uninformed member of society. I think that you need to rethink your attack on me and my firmly held beliefs and learn to accept alternate views as valid." Don't worry if the offending person said nothing to imply you are undeducated, worthless, or uninformed: people aren't paying that much attention anyway, and will take your word for it.

Technique #2: Guilt trips.
You can do this in several ways. First, there's the generic guilt trip "Look, you don't know half of what I've been through in life. Why, when I was a kid, I had to work thirty hours a day down at the mill, I got up at 10 in the evening, half an hour before I went to bed, and every night my father would kill me and dance about on my grave." If you want something with a semblance of credibility, however, you'll have to get more specific. A good way to do this is to claim a person is prejudiced against you because you're a minority/woman/homosexual/Democrat/Republican/ too young/too old.... you get the point. A good way to do start this off is to say "You'd put more consideration into what I did if I was (younger, older, Republican, a Democrat, heterosexual, male, white) Then you can go on about all of the total assholes you knew that were chauvinist male pigs, KKK- qualifying racists, square old people, rebellious young punks, bleeding heart liberal pinkos, or dittohead NRA-brainwashed conservatives. Make sure that the actions of aforementioned assholes can all be blamed on the person you're flaming.

Technique #3- Pulling Rank
This is a very effective technique, because it has the capacity to actually INCREASE your credibility and, although it depends on a great deal of non sequitor logic, is actually effective in impressing many people who are easily impressed and deficient in logic.

The many ways in which you can "pull rank" depend basically on your background (or what aspects of your background you want to make up and lie about). There are three basic ways to pull rank: age, position, and connections.

Age is frequently used, because it is something many people have. For example, in fandoms where there is a cross-generational appeal (such as Beatles fans), the older fans will often use their age as a weapon against the younger. They might say, "Why, you cannot truly be a fan unless you know what it felt like to have seen the Beatles when they were on Ed Sullivan," thereby ruling out anything the younger person says as irrelevent.

People may also use their position as evidence that their statements are irrefutable truth. For example, an English teacher may claim irrefutable superiority in all arguments regarding interpretation of a specific work by virtue of his or her career choice and the diploma hanging on his or her wall. I once knew a teacher who wouldn't have let Steinbeck himself argue with her interpretation of Of Mice and Men...

Lastly, one may claim irrefutable knowledge based on your connections. While this is generally the most non sequitor of all the methods of "pulling rank", it often works to dazzle people at your superiority to the extent of ignoring that small detail. For example, if you have had any aquaintance with a celebrity of some sort, join a newsgroup or mailing list devoted to that person. Once you make sure that everyone is aware of your connections, you can use them to make sure you come out ahead in every argument, whether on-topic or off-topic.

Technique #4- Insulting "jokes"
This is a method in which you downright insult your antagonist-- and get away with it! You may well ask, "How is this done?". Well, I intend to explain just that!

Make sure your insult contains either a huge amount of sarcasm (such as an obviously fake compliment) or some humorous merit (or some semblance of humor-- actual potential to make someone laugh is irrelevant). That way, there is no good reply your antagonist can make. Any attempt to reply seriously allows you to explain that he/she obviously has no sense of humor that he/she cannot recognize that said comment was a joke.

Technique #5- Irrelevant Comments
Irrelevant comments serve to portray you as a Noble, Upstanding Person and/or to portray your antagonist as a No Good, Low Down Worthless Bastard. These comments are easy to come by, as they don't necessarily need to have any relevance to the Topic at Hand.

Some possible irrelevant comments to defend yourself include:

* I am trying to raise my children to be kind, compassionate, and love God.
* I am a very competent (insert profession here) trying to live as a productive member of society.
* I am very nice to my pet dog/cat/hamster/guinea pig/goldfish/iguana/alligator

Some possible irrelevant comments to attack the other person include:
* any attacks on spelling or grammar
* attacks on the person's lack of open-mindedness
* attacks that twist your antagonists words to mean something else, allowing you to attack him/her on that basis

Conclusion

I hope to have covered all of the major areas and techniques involved in effective flaming, and that you will be able to use my advice in your future practice. So, good luck, and happy flaming! Let's keep the Internet angry, disgusted, and in total discord!


This is very important:

Everything doesn’t have to be a flame war. Please don’t feel that your every post needs to be a flame. This is a general discussion forum for any topic you like. However, for when those discussions descend into flame wars, here are some tips.

So, you’ve been flamed…

Before you can compose the correct response, you need to identify what kind of flamer you are dealing with..

The Quick-Fire Flamer;

This flamer will read your post and be so enraged they will be straight on the reply button to respond. However it’s possible that in their hurry they misinterpreted or misread what you said completely.

This can be quite easy to counter-flame, as you can ridicule this poster for their poor reading skills or misinterpretation of your post.

The Pedantic Flamer;

This flamer is out to antagonize you by pointing out your every mistake. He likes to inform you when to use “their” and when to use “there”, and he’ll jump on your spelling mistakes. Were you to state that “dogs have hair” he will take great satisfaction in pointing out the Mexican hairless breed. Of course the poster could have been just trying to help, and you the receiver may have taken offence for no reason. Or it’s possible that this is a very covert flame. He secretly intended to antagonize, but he will claim he was just trying to be helpful.

This can be very difficult to counter. Not replying to this flame means you don’t give the flamer the satisfaction of knowing he’s got you. But it may leave you feeling unsatisfied. A good response may be to play the pedantic role yourself, such as pointing out that you obviously meant “dogs in general”.

The Stubborn Flamer;

This guy is absolutely convinced he is right and you are wrong. There is very little you can do to change his mind, and he won’t be subtle in telling you what he thinks. The problem with the stubborn flamer is he can often become covert when he sees he’s starting to lose. Not wanting to admit defeat he will often completely change the argument, claiming his problem wasn’t with Fact A but Fact B, hoping he might stand a better chance arguing about Fact B.

This guy is very easy to antagonize. You can have some fun reading his frustrated replies. It’s very unlikely this guy is going to back down, so a good counter-attack (as crazy as it sounds) may be to concede, or to congratulate his well founded point. You can be sarcastic about it or genuine. Taking the moral high ground can improve your standing within the community as a whole.

The Troller;

Beware the troller. This person is often a well practiced flamer. He may move from forum to forum, and his posts will always be designed to antagonize a response from someone, anyone! Most people believe that there is no reasoning with a troller.

The consensus on the net is to not give a troller the satisfaction of a response. But where’s the fun in that? The best response would perhaps be phrased as calmly as possible while countering their claims. You can guarantee you WILL get a response, and then you’ve trolled a troller! Their responses may escalate and become more foul. Don’t let this affect you, and make sure this is reflected in the wording and tone of your posts. If the troller begins breaching the rules of the forum (such as using foul language) a moderator will step in and put them in their place (on the ban list).

The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing;

This flamer is similar to a troller, but he’s out to toy with the administrators of the forum rather than its users. He’s trying to see how far he can push the rules before he’s stopped. When he thinks he’s being discovered, he will temporarily reverse his attitude to throw more confusion into the situation. This flamer is devious indeed.

This guy is a pain. Like a troller he’s not out to participate in the community, he’s trying to destroy it. Show your support for the admin and the site, by flaming and exposing him. He won’t be tolerated for long.


Ati identificat personajele? Eu da (inclusiv pe mine).

[Alex Leo Serban]

me too (= 'the pedantic flamer' )...

[halebardul]

good for you.
cat despre mine, ma identific cam in toate tipurile de flameri mai putin ultimele doua, si folosesc toate tehnicile, mai putin Technique #3- Pulling Rank.

Cert e ca forumul a ajuns doar un camp de batalie, in flacari. Multe certuri, cinema nema.
Userii incearca sa formeze o comunitate "umana" - si, evident, esueaza, in loc sa ramana la nivelul unei comunitati "de breasla".
Inclusiv eu.

[halebardul]

dupa inca 5 zile de detentie, va propun un ultim joc.

jucati-va de-a halebardul. Intrati cu
user: halebardul
pass: parola

imbracati-i armura, cotrobaiti prin cutii (surpriza, insa, toate mesajele private sunt sterse!) postati in numele lui, puneti-i o semnatura haioasa gen: Sunt un prost! un avatar caraghios, distrati-va, faceti giumbuslucuri. Editati-i toate mesajele trecute sau stergeti-le de tot. Have fun, ca mie nu-mi mai trebuie.

De acum, duminica 5 iulie 2009 ora 17.15, oricine a scris sau scrie in numele meu poate fi o clona. Sau eu.
Nighty night!

[redmen]

Nu fii copil.

[keepwalking]

halebardu,
dupa ce in urma cu 2-3 saptamani proslaveai cinemagia.ro, vad ca acum ti-ai facut propriul forum.
nu esti un "cavaler" pe care sa-l dea principiile afara din casa, nu-i asa?

[Dragomara]

dupa inca 5 zile de detentie, va propun un ultim joc.

jucati-va de-a halebardul. Intrati cu
user: halebardul
pass: parola

imbracati-i armura, cotrobaiti prin cutii (surpriza, insa, toate mesajele private sunt sterse!) postati in numele lui, puneti-i o semnatura haioasa gen: Sunt un prost! un avatar caraghios, distrati-va, faceti giumbuslucuri. Editati-i toate mesajele trecute sau stergeti-le de tot. Have fun, ca mie nu-mi mai trebuie.

De acum, duminica 5 iulie 2009 ora 17.15, oricine a scris sau scrie in numele meu poate fi o clona. Sau eu.
Nighty night!

ţi-aş fi scris un PM... dar unde parola e publică...

vroiam să-ţi sugerez să ne jucăm de-a copiii. ei pun mult suflet şi multă seriozitate în tot ce fac. acelaşi joc reluat iar şi iar nu-şi pierde nicicând prospeţimea.

am uitat să fim copii, sau poate că unii dintre noi n-am fost niciodată.

sper să revii asupra deciziei, sau dacă pleci cel puţin nu pleca supărat, nu se merită. (ar tb să conteze doar părerile celor pe care-i cunoaştem, eventual apreciem.)

[Pauline Kael]

halebardu,
dupa ce in urma cu 2-3 saptamani proslaveai cinemagia.ro, vad ca acum ti-ai facut propriul forum.
nu esti un "cavaler" pe care sa-l dea principiile afara din casa, nu-i asa?

De cand e interzis/ilegal/nelegitim sa-ti faci forum sau blog?