Anyone else find him annoying...especially for a "new" member?

Search through his posts.... I can't believe that he's serious about offering Excalibur + $5 for a guy's copy of Sid and Nancy... + some other very inane posts.


I normally don't b!tch about these things....

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...3&pagenumber=8

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99127



[Edited by Autotelik on 04-16-01 at 04:00 PM]

This is a "classic": http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99245

And he made all those posts today too.

not any more annoying than a LOT of "old" members on here

Where is a mod when you need one :D

I see someone changed his name to minicock rotfl

HEY! I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT!!! :grunt:
mini

rotfl rotfl :lol: rotfl rotfl

Now it looks like he's been banned:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...916#post978916

In all of his 30 some posts, did he post anything useful? Or was it all lame comments and fart jokes? rotfl

Sorry mini. :)

I edited the thread title to be less offensive.

randyc

maybe a mod can help me out here -

I'm interested in a DVDTalk definition of "troll" or "trolling".

I really have no intrinsic interest in Throbcock's membership here but what exactly did he do that longstanding members don't do in the Other Forum all the time?

His stupid threads weren't any stupider than, say:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99318

or any grosser than, say:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=96331


just curious

Interesting point, Bust.

Bust-

It took the other members a while to degenerate to the stage you pointed out. minicock started out that way. Think where he'll end up if he follows the same path downhill. :)

I don't think it's fair to ban him for immaturing faster than the rest of us. Hell, I'll admit it. I thought his threads were funny.

I would understand if he was a previously [BANNED] member returning to have some fun though.

Bust, I didn't even get a chance to check into it yet, but I am 95% sure it is a returning member based on the posting pattern. I bet Randy is 100% sure though.

Bust, thanks for pointing out that other thread you linked. It was way over the line. I deleted the link in that thread and closed it. It does not make sense to point to another thread that is beyond forum rules and use it as a measure of these other threads.

randyc

all right, that's fair. I then submit...

His gross threads weren't any grosser than, say:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99070


also,

I'm interested in a DVDTalk definition of "troll" or "trolling".

I really have no intrinsic interest in Throbcock's membership here but what exactly did he do that longstanding members don't do in the Other Forum all the time?

still waiting for answers to these questions.

Let's just ban all the members that add wit and comedy to the forum. Sooner or later, it's just gonna be me and classicman2 talking about the capital gains tax. Could we add a forum that's more racy than the other forum;where we could be more mature, funny, profane and maybe engage in some banter that would be considered innapropriate for the rest of DVDTALK? I know the member was previously banned, but he probably wouldn't have been banned in the first place if he has an appropriate outlet to begin with. I miss people like Kim Deal, who kept me frequently checking the forum.

btw... i started this thread because that guy was posting some crude/offensive/sarcastic comments in forums outside of other... and his posts in the other forum strongly suggested that he was a previously banned member (the way he imitated Soup Nazi's subject heading, etc)..

...and he was kind of funny though. ;)

There are a lot of funny members that are *not* banned. The logic that a few funny people are banned means we will have nothing but dry discussion in Other is pretty silly.

Users are not banned for being witty or funny. They are banned for violating forum rules. That is all. It's unfortunate (like in the case of Kim Deal) that someone who is witty and articulate also can't follow simple rules.

Yet ... ;)

<ol><li> -rolleyes- So <i>that</i> is what all the padding is really about!<li> :lol: <li> -confused- I think I get what you are saying here i.e. [MATURE]-type posts. Although the term can sometimes be oxymoronic, IMNSHO!<li> -ptth- <i>"The One & Only Repeat, Rollcall, Pad and Banter Thread"</i>?</li></ol>

There have been a few threads on the Feedback forum <i>and elsewhere</i> about blatant padding, hijacking etc. I don't think it is out of order here for me to express the personal opinion that these can be as annoying as the "dumb" questions and repetitions that are seen on various of the main forums.

It is a bit like trying to have a conversation in a crowded room - where there are various other groups talking that you are striving to ignore so you can concentrate on what interests you - but someone insists on coming by regularly and shouting one-liners in your ear, or throwing a non sequitur in to the mix.

In the scheme of things I guess it isn't a Big Deal but.... you know.... (I mean some guys are regularly just adding a smiley at the end of a quote).

[Edited by benedict on 04-11-01 at 10:59 AM]

I don't know Randy. I think some members may have made up their minds that our goal is to make this a terrible boring forum where free thought is hated. I find it pointless to try to convince them otherwise. They are going to feel what they choose one way or another.

Has this fella re-registered under <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/member.php?action=mailform&userid=35973">this name</a>?