Yesterday across a few of the Sydney terror attack thread, one particular poster dominated the discussion, not by disagreeing or adding opinion or content, but by badgering, verbling, selective and out of context quoting and generally trying to win arguments (not about content) but win the argument about the argument through hair splitting and pedantry and personal attacks.

The effect was very clear. Exasperated posters just gave up and left.

In one of the threads about ISIS inspired attacks I posted a first person account of the absurdly heavy police presence at Bondi Beach, a location named as a terror attack target. Personally I love reading peoples first person accounts and observations.

Now I bring this up not out of hurt feelings or pride, I have broad shoulders and a clear head, but I ask, what effect does this have on the population of a discussion forum?
Would a newcomer poking their head in for a look decide to stay?

Here's an example.

gweggy/mothra are serial offenders...

I was told by Freediver that it's not against the rules to be annoying.

End of discussion. 

That was it.

Gregg & Co have permission from the station owner to be the fly in every thread's soup, the floater in every toilet bowl, the baked mouse in every pie, the cockroach in the hamburger, the skid-mark in the Forum Board's underpants.

The way to handle attention-seeking fractious children is to ignore them.

I use as a model those wonderful mothers at the Supermarkets who stand there with Godly patience and a calm expression as their 3-year olds spin on the floor like dying flies, screaming in a tantrum because they were walked past the chocolates and lollies shelves in aisle 6.i

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 12^th, 2016 at 7:36am:


I like mothra for occasionally playing the role of the arch-bitch which she does with consummate ease and conviction - like Marla, and she does occasionally turn out a good rant.

Intelligent, but politically delinquent from a misspent youth moving around in The Wrong Crowd.

ohh looky, someone doesn't agree with all the bullsh1t on here and now they're getting all upset .... cry me a river

Here's an idea ... You could always try sticking to the facts and leaving Greg no room for pedantry?

John Smith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2016 at 8:18am:


It's not about disagreeing with the actual content or opinions.
Read the threads and tell me hand on heart if it's conducive to a good debate?

Gordon wrote on Sep 12^th, 2016 at 8:44am:



your idea of good debate revolves around hashing out stereotypes and assumptions, Gregs obviously revolves around sticking to known facts. I'm not sure why everyone get so worked up about it when he calls you on your lose application of facts ... if it's a fact, support it, if its speculation , give your reasons for it ... don't just argue that black is blue and Greg is a pedant for insisting that it's black .

John Smith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2016 at 9:45am: