On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:10:39 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:28:42 -0600, thad05 wrote:
>>
>>> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I may not agree with or believe much of what Roy posts, but that doesn't
>>>> mean I approve of the kind of filth being posted about him by you and all
>>>> you silly little nyms. *You* have lost the argument by posting such tripe.
>>>
>>> I don't always agree with the editorial spin Roy puts on some of
>>> his News posts, but I welcome his input in this forum, and I find
>>> many of his posts are great seeds for some fun debates. Unlike
>>> Roy, the trolls that descend to the sort of trash talk and personal
>>> attacks you describe add nothing to the debate; they 'lose' their
>>> argument in my opinion as well.
>>
>> My personal take? That Roy should cool off on some of the boycott this,
>> boycott that stuff, and be more accurate in his posts. But I see no reason
>> to think it justified for anyone to attack him in the way he has been
>> attacked by some of the scum in COLA.
>
> Roy is a nutcase. He is the one slinging the mud accusing companies and
> people of X,Y and Z with no proof. It's why he was so horribly
> humiliated on that webcast. He had no facts or proff of anything - just
> his rather smug assumption that anything he says is "naturally right".
I am not talking about any webcast. You seem to think it is bad that Roy
says what he says about various companies/entities, but fine for him to be
libelled in the disgusting way he has been in COLA. At least he is talking
about business dealings, not some totally made-up sexual matters. Do you
find that acceptable?
I have disagreed with Roy on many occasions, so don't accuse me of any
non-existant attempts to 'suck up'.
--
Kier
|
|
