refers to an attempt to drag elements up from the past in order to confront, embarrass or discredit an opponent.
The Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every cragislist post you ever made until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago. After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive Stalker will link to the old post(s) in an effort to discredit you.
http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls
1.Why is it morally acceptable or not to drag elements up from the past and use them to confront, embarrass and discredit other people.
2. Is it consummate with professed Christian belief to do so.
If you have any insight please let it be known.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117530
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've been being a dick here for years, why shouldn't we be reminded of your 'underpants at you ankles' moments?
refers to an attempt to drag elements up from the past in order to confront, embarrass or discredit an opponent.
The Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every cragislist post you ever made until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago. After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive ...[text shortened]... ur professed beliefs as a Christian to do so.
If you have any insight please let it be known.
Originally posted by divegeesterPlease note the use of the term WHY usually demands a reason, if i wanted some airhead slobbery son of Satan drivel Ill ask you for it.
You've been being a dick here for years, why shouldn't we be reminded of your 'underpants at you ankles' moments?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie😴
refers to an attempt to drag elements up from the past in order to confront, embarrass or discredit an opponent.
The Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every cragislist post you ever made until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago. After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive ...[text shortened]... ate with professed Christian belief to do so.
If you have any insight please let it be known.
It appears to me that to constantly harp on about what someone said in the past so as to confront, embarrass and/or discredit them is immoral because it refuses to take into consideration that the persons perspective may have changed and that they no longer hold the views that they did at the time. In other words it refuses to look at the potential in a person, only what they were alleged to have been and who among us has not undergone some profound change in life?
To constantly cast things up from the past also displays a kind of vindictive unwillingness to let the person forget what the did. Of course to use it to embarrass or discredit someone is also immoral for it may detract completely from a valid point that the person was making at the time and cast them in an unfair light.
So in summary casting things up from the past is not making someone accountable for their words, its simply an attempt to embarrass and sometimes stigmatise them for no other reason than they made a mistake in the past.
As to a Christian perspective on it, I think that its almost impossible to substantiate a case for it Biblically for we are counselled to 'freely forgive one another even as Christ forgave us'. It is thus impossible to reconcile this idea with casting elements up from the past so as to discredit or embarrass others as its neither forgiving nor Christ like.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117530
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt appears to me that nobody give a rats ass about you or your "retrospective" BS.
It appears to me that to constantly harp on about what someone said in the past so as to confront, embarrass and/or discredit them is immoral because it refuses to take into consideration that the persons perspective may have changed and that they no longer hold the views that they did at the time. In other words it refuses to look at the potential i ...[text shortened]... p from the past so as to discredit or embarrass others as its neither forgiving nor Christ like.
Originally posted by divegeesteryes but you have still to tell us why you think it consummate with Christian principles as you have sated. I have given a reason why i thinks its anti Christian.
It appears to me that nobody give a rats ass about you or your "retrospective" BS.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNice job, well put!
It appears to me that to constantly harp on about what someone said in the past so as to confront, embarrass and/or discredit them is immoral because it refuses to take into consideration that the persons perspective may have changed and that they no longer hold the views that they did at the time. In other words it refuses to look at the potential i ...[text shortened]... p from the past so as to discredit or embarrass others as its neither forgiving nor Christ like.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're the only poster on this website I have come across who has an issue with people bringing up something you have said in a previous discussion. I have zero qualms about someone bringing up something I have said previously.
perhaps you can tell us your insight on it Noobster for you are a noteworthy example.
The reason, as I see it, as to why it is such an issue for you is because you frequently talk utter nonsense. You just make stuff up as you go along. Your vanity and ego gets in the way of you admitting you are wrong and we end up in situations such as the one where you actually tried to claim you had forgotten whether you believed Santa Claus existed or not. Or the situation where you lied about how you would feel with regard to racist abuse being directed at your wife. Your posting history is littered with contradictions, inconsistencies (a harsher term would be lies but I'm feeling not too combative at the moment after a few bottles of beer) and name calling. All this from a self declared 'ordained minister of God. So it stands to reason why you don't want references from your posting history to be raised. That's how I see it.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou're the only poster on this website I have come across who has an issue with people bringing up something you have said in a previous discussion. I have zero qualms about someone bringing up something I have said previously.
The reason, as I see it, as to why it is such an issue for you is because you frequently talk utter nonsense. You just make stuff up as you go along. Your vanity and ego gets in the way of you admitting you are wrong and we end up in situations such as the one where you actually tried to claim you had forgotten whether you believed Santa Claus existed or not. Or the situation where you lied about how you would feel with regard to racist abuse being directed at your wife. Your posting history is littered with contradictions, inconsistencies [...] and name calling. All this from a self declared 'ordained minister of God. So it stands to reason why you don't want references from your posting history to be raised. That's how I see it.
Bingo.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117530
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe orher day you apologised for calling me a son of Satan, was that you trolling me? If I bring up to apologising, is that retro-trolling? If you repeatedly call me "son of satan" is at you retro-trolling?
Please note the use of the term WHY usually demands a reason, if i wanted some airhead slobbery son of Satan drivel Ill ask you for it.