Troll Headlines.......

singpilot · 08-02-2006, 08:15 AM

You want to get the mainstream PP OT guys to ignore your posts and label you a troll?

'34 innocent children massacred by terrorist attack'

'Kerry says no war if he had been elected'

'Bush reaps profits of war'

'Kennedy walks on water near Chappaquidick'

'Clinton says GOP-owned dry cleaners at fault'

'South Carolina to seceed from Union once again'

What are some of the other 'winners' here? While I am tired of seeing and ignoring them, I do get a laugh out of the good ones....

VaSteve · 08-02-2006, 08:38 AM

"Girl on Girl Kissing thread.'

on-ramp · 08-02-2006, 08:59 AM

hey, we report things how we see them , don't mean we're trolls.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

"Troll headlines".

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

"Open Letter to OT"

tobster1911 · 08-02-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
hey, we report things how we see them , don't mean we're trolls.

Well then maybe your vision is suspect and should be checked.

"34 innocent children massacred by terrorist attack"

Just reporting as you see it, completely impartial, not picking sides right? You are in the ME so you can see and then write a report implying that Israel is intentionally killing innocent children?

on-ramp · 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tobster1911
Well then maybe your vision is suspect and should be checked.

"34 innocent children massacred by terrorist attack"

Just reporting as you see it, completely impartial, not picking sides right? You are in the ME so you can see and then write a report implying that Israel is intentionally killing innocent children?

first of all, that wasn't the correct headline. go back and get your facts straight.

it was "Terrorist Attack kills 34 Youths in Lebanon"

when a bomb falls from the sky and kills that many innocent people, it's called TERROR...no matter how you try to explain or justify it or whatever. it's a terrorist attack. if you were ever on the receiving end you might understand

most people would agree.

charleskieffner · 08-02-2006, 09:54 AM

TROLLS are people too!

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by VaSteve
"Girl on Girl Kissing thread.'

AKA "Salivation can be yours"

singpilot · 08-02-2006, 10:03 AM

Gawd, I love OT.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Michael, you're just sick. We're all sick

Sorry I couldn't hook up earlier in the week. It's been nuts, now I'm at my new job and of course things are crazy. I'll likely just end up sucking it up until the Duc is on the road again. But I'd like to come up to Van Nuys to see the collection at some point regardless...

tobster1911 · 08-02-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
first of all, that wasn't the correct headline. go back and get your facts straight.

it was "Terrorist Attack kills 34 Youths in Lebanon"

when a bomb falls from the sky and kills that many innocent people, it's called TERROR...no matter how you try to explain or justify it or whatever. it's a terrorist attack. if you were ever on the receiving end you might understand

most people would agree.

LOL, You are correct. There is a HUGE difference in those two headlines.

1. No where in that article you posted was this labeled a terrorist attack. You added that to the title for what purpose exactly?

2. Terrorists don't exactly have planes and bombs to drop. I know it is an easy label to use for you but it has a more specific meaning to most people (since you want to drag them into this). You definition would apply to all physical violence ever committed. You think that the guy robbing the gas station is a terrorist? In a general sense yes, but not the commonly accepted way.

3. If I was on the receiving end of a recognized countries military action, I would think it an act of war. Duh.

charleskieffner · 08-02-2006, 10:13 AM

i think there should be a "TROLLS ARE COMMITTED TO ACCURATE REPORTING CLAUSE" in all TROLLS CONTRACTS! kinda like the "TROLLS TRUTH IN ADVERTISING" campaign.

on-ramp · 08-02-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tobster1911
LOL, You are correct. There is a HUGE difference in those two headlines.

1. No where in that article you posted was this labeled a terrorist attack. You added that to the title for what purpose exactly?

2. Terrorists don't exactly have planes and bombs to drop. I know it is an easy label to use for you but it has a more specific meaning to most people (since you want to drag them into this). You definition would apply to all physical violence ever committed. You think that the guy robbing the gas station is a terrorist? In a general sense yes, but not the commonly accepted way.

3. If I was on the receiving end of a recognized countries military action, I would think it an act of war. Duh.

terrorism exists in many forms. your definition is not the only one.