posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:24 PM
Ok, you guys are right. Sometimes the defense goes a little overboard. However, everyone (speaking for myself) and I do mean EVERYONE that comes onto
this board looking for answers or general information is treated with the utmost respect and courtesy. I mean hell, why are we here?
Intrepid, you make a good point as usual. But think about this: How many posts are shot back and forth before someone drops the "T" bomb? ( )
Seriously. In most cases, it is only after a certain poster has shown himself to actually be a troll for any of us to say he is. It's not
common for someone to come here and immediately be labeled a troll or instigator. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. There are some,
however, that simply choose to keep on, even after what they have presented has been shown to be false, or at least an opinion or viewpoint has been
presented that should make someone think about things a little more, and stimulate discussion.
Take the recent hierarchy argument for example. I personally, along with Seb, spent the better part of two or three days' posting arguing with
twitchy. We both spent alot of time explaining the system, how it works, the purpose it serves, and why the idea that he was suggesting simply isn't
true. He sticks to his guns (which is admirable in itself). But, on the flip side of that, when we present ideas and information in an attempt to get
him to rationally discuss what he is alledging, what does he do? Changes the subject. . Then what? He goes off on a tangent, about oaths and
loyalty to Zion (wherever THAT came from), and other such... well, other ideas. Then, lo and behold, someone asks him "where did you get that
information?" A reasonable question no? So what does he do? He posts a page from a monitor that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at
hand and says (and I quote) "From the same place I got this". OK smart guy, if it's from the same source, why can't you post the relevant
portion? I don't mean to pick on twitchy, and these are rhetorical questions, I'm just trying to make a point. This kind of thing is seen all to
often in this forum.
It's not that anyone who disagrees with me, or Seb, Senrak, or anyone else is automatically labeled a troll. It's not that those who have a problem
with Freemasonry are labeled trolls. But you can't just say "Nyah nyah! All Masons are evil and you're all going to hell!" and let that be the end
of it. Also, if a person expects to be taken seriously, he or she must not be a hypocrite and expect everyone else to be open minded, while carrying
on from a viewpoint so narrow that they can't even see the obvious flaws in their own argument.
I don't always do the best job, but I try really hard to keep my cool. When and if I am shown to be wrong, or if I get out of line, I will be the
first to stand up and say so. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong or apologizing for something I say that is hurtful or uncalled for. Everyone
here who knows me knows this. But there are times when someone just carries on so long or is so blatantly ignorant you just have to let 'em have it,
warning or no warning. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do. But those of you here that know me know that I can honestly say that I keep
it pretty level.
The trolls show themselves to be just that, and I only call 'em how I see 'em, after giving them ample opportunity to show me I'm wrong.
[edit on 6/2/05 by The Axeman]