Kill Trolls Dead Thread

NYSOM
First, I believe that NYSOM is, quite literally, trolling for d!ck.

Second, I just went back and re-read the sentence (two clauses, one sentence) and it reads:

"Home boy needs to find a hobby, and trolling for d!ck isn't one of them"

Setting aside the obvious grammar error ("them" is plural and refers back to "hobby", which is singular), I read that sentence to say that "trolling for d!ck" is NOT a hobby for "home boy" (hereafter "NYSOM") to find.

So where is any accusation of what NYSOM is (or isn't)?

NYSOM needs to find a hobby.

"Trolling for d!ck" is not a hobby that NYSOM needs to find.

Is that an "attack"? Is that a "homo slur"? Have I suddenly, and late-in-life, lost all ability to comprehend the English language?

If I had NYSOM's personality, I would start to believe that this whole thing is a troll on me.
It’s a slur. It might be fitting for the “shtick” character he plays, but it was meant as a cut down and NYSOM responded as we know.

All I’m saying, is if NYSOM did this out of left field, then ok. But it was in direct response to that so there needs to be some context.
 
Advertisement
First, I believe that NYSOM is, quite literally, trolling for d!ck.

Second, I just went back and re-read the sentence (two clauses, one sentence) and it reads:

"Home boy needs to find a hobby, and trolling for d!ck isn't one of them"

Setting aside the obvious grammar error ("them" is plural and refers back to "hobby", which is singular), I read that sentence to say that "trolling for d!ck" is NOT a hobby for "home boy" (hereafter "NYSOM") to find.

So where is any accusation of what NYSOM is (or isn't)?

NYSOM needs to find a hobby.

"Trolling for d!ck" is not a hobby that NYSOM needs to find.

Is that an "attack"? Is that a "homo slur"? Have I suddenly, and late-in-life, lost all ability to comprehend the English language?

If I had NYSOM's personality, I would start to believe that this whole thing is a troll on me.
Got a laughing emoji from me because in a sordid kind of way, this entire situation is hilarious.
 
NYSOM

It’s a slur. It might be fitting for the “shtick” character he plays, but it was meant as a cut down and NYSOM responded as we know.

All I’m saying, is if NYSOM did this out of left field, then ok. But it was in direct response to that so there needs to be some context.

Look, I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking for clarification. We all go back and forth with each other, and given the update to the rules, I think we could all benefit for some additional understanding.

I think you are saying that if someone says "RVA Cane needs to get a hobby, and spinning dreidels is not one of them" (and I use that example with all love and respect to you, you know I hold you in the highest regard), then it is the mention of "spinning dreidels" as some sort of ethnic/religious shorthand that is the problem, not the literal accusation that you are a "dreidel spinner"?

I just want to understand, because "trolling for d!ck", for right or wrong, is a phrase that I have seen used on CIS with some frequency.

Like I said earlier, I do not think that Austin's sentence was a literal ACCUSATION that NYSOM is *** (something that NYSOM himself has clouded for months), but he certainly used words which are shorthand for someone being ***.

That's why I take issue with NYSOM calling it an "attack". I do not believe he was attacked. Now, "slur" is a possibility. If a person says the "n-word", even if they are not calling someone the "n-word", it is still a slur, just not an attack on any particular person.

And now we return to our regularly scheduled episode of The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer.
 
Second, I just went back and re-read the sentence (two clauses, one sentence) and it reads:

"Home boy needs to find a hobby, and trolling for d!ck isn't one of them"

Setting aside the obvious grammar error ("them" is plural and refers back to "hobby", which is singular), I read that sentence to say that "trolling for d!ck" is NOT a hobby for "home boy" (hereafter "NYSOM") to find.

So where is any accusation of what NYSOM is (or isn't)?

NYSOM needs to find a hobby.

"Trolling for d!ck" is not a hobby that NYSOM needs to find.

Is that an "attack"? Is that a "homo slur"? Have I suddenly, and late-in-life, lost all ability to comprehend the English language?

C'mon, man. This is a pretty disingenuous argument. The implication of the second clause following the first is that NYSOM trolls for d1ck, and OP is not counting "trolling for d!ck" as a legitimate hobby.

You're also assuming OP's command of the written English language is sufficient, despite acknowledging at least one basic grammatical mistake in the sentence. I know you know better. People don't always say (or type) precisely what they mean, and they don't always mean precisely what they say (or type).

All of that being said, as I recall it, NYSOM started off as a typical mopey troll around these parts. A couple of years ago, after catching some flack for that, he changed his shtick and had the dueling accounts (NYSOM and NJSOM), that included a "rosier" outlook from the Garden State. In my opinion, that was actually pretty funny and much appreciated during a particularly sad time in Canes football. Pretty sure I advocated on his behalf at the time.

Unfortunately (IMO), as the shtick developed, it evolved an odd homoeroticism that would probably be interesting to a behavioral psychologist, but is often less-than-funny for my tastes. Some people get upset and engage, others think it's funny and engage, and others simply ignore it. To each his/her own.

When NYSOM is at his best, he's bringing news to the board and providing some light comic relief. When he's at his worst, he's spamming the board with OT nonsense or making individuals cringe via relentless homosexual innuendo. Do with that what you will...
 
Everything has a 1 point warning base value. That doesn't mean an extreme case won't warrant a permaband.

Nobody is going to post" I'm going to catch you at the game and shoot your ***" and expect a 1 point warning.
When if it's a gaytor or NJtoFLACane?
 
Advertisement
C'mon, man. This is a pretty disingenuous argument. The implication of the second clause following the first is that NYSOM trolls for d1ck, and OP is not counting "trolling for d!ck" as a legitimate hobby.

You're also assuming OP's command of the written English language is sufficient, despite acknowledging at least one basic grammatical mistake in the sentence. I know you know better. People don't always say (or type) precisely what they mean, and they don't always mean precisely what they say (or type).

All of that being said, as I recall it, NYSOM started off as a typical mopey troll around these parts. A couple of years ago, after catching some flack for that, he changed his shtick and had the dueling accounts (NYSOM and NJSOM), that included a "rosier" outlook from the Garden State. In my opinion, that was actually pretty funny and much appreciated during a particularly sad time in Canes football. Pretty sure I advocated on his behalf at the time.

Unfortunately (IMO), as the shtick developed, it evolved an odd homoeroticism that would probably be interesting to a behavioral psychologist, but is often less-than-funny for my tastes. Some people get upset and engage, others think it's funny and engage, and others simply ignore it. To each his/her own.

When NYSOM is at his best, he's bringing news to the board and providing some light comic relief. When he's at his worst, he's spamming the board with OT nonsense or making individuals cringe via relentless homosexual innuendo. Do with that what you will...


First, I started off by saying that NYSOM (internet) trolls for d!ck. That's not disingenuous, that's what he does. He trolls, and he does it using a fake-***-persona. I also acknowledge that "trolling for d!ck" may also be used as shorthand for calling someone ***. Not disingenuous.

Having said that, I still don't see it as an attack. And it also goes back to my earlier point about NYSOM "drawing a foul". He has a fake-***-persona. He makes *** jokes. Let's say someone makes a *** joke back at him. And then NYSOM takes issue because he is not, in fact, ***. Why should that be held against the person who plays along with NYSOM's trolling?

Or, earlier, when NYSOM called me a "redneck". Am I allowed to say something that references his fake-***-persona? Does it matter that I know NYSOM is not ***?

I'm not defending Austin. I would not have written what he wrote. But I also don't see it as some sort of awful "attack" that necessitated a grossly disproportionate attack that led nearly everyone to believe that Austin was down-low hitting up NYSOM for d!ck-pics. And if we are trying to talk about context here, we need to acknowledge that NOT everyone knows that NYSOM's fake-*** schtick is fake.

And that's a point that I've made before. If NYSOM fake "comes on to a guy", some guys don't know that it's a joke. And some guys are more upset by *** come-ons than other guys are. Same thing with *** jokes generally, some guys can roll with *** jokes, others are offended, and others get angry. And if a person came on this board with "fake-black-schtick", posting as Harlemstateofmind and making a bunch of fried chicken and watermelon jokes, you'd see many people on this board who would VALIDLY lose their ****e over that.

That's all. NYSOM could easily drop the fake *** schtick. He's already "made his point" to the moderators who banned him previously.

My suspicion is that he will keep on trolling us all.
 
First, I started off by saying that NYSOM (internet) trolls for d!ck. That's not disingenuous, that's what he does. He trolls, and he does it using a fake-***-persona. I also acknowledge that "trolling for d!ck" may also be used as shorthand for calling someone ***. Not disingenuous.

Having said that, I still don't see it as an attack. And it also goes back to my earlier point about NYSOM "drawing a foul". He has a fake-***-persona. He makes *** jokes. Let's say someone makes a *** joke back at him. And then NYSOM takes issue because he is not, in fact, ***. Why should that be held against the person who plays along with NYSOM's trolling?

Or, earlier, when NYSOM called me a "redneck". Am I allowed to say something that references his fake-***-persona? Does it matter that I know NYSOM is not ***?

I'm not defending Austin. I would not have written what he wrote. But I also don't see it as some sort of awful "attack" that necessitated a grossly disproportionate attack that led nearly everyone to believe that Austin was down-low hitting up NYSOM for d!ck-pics. And if we are trying to talk about context here, we need to acknowledge that NOT everyone knows that NYSOM's fake-*** schtick is fake.

And that's a point that I've made before. If NYSOM fake "comes on to a guy", some guys don't know that it's a joke. And some guys are more upset by *** come-ons than other guys are. Same thing with *** jokes generally, some guys can roll with *** jokes, others are offended, and others get angry. And if a person came on this board with "fake-black-schtick", posting as Harlemstateofmind and making a bunch of fried chicken and watermelon jokes, you'd see many people on this board who would VALIDLY lose their ****e over that.

That's all. NYSOM could easily drop the fake *** schtick. He's already "made his point" to the moderators who banned him previously.

My suspicion is that he will keep on trolling us all.
We need more lawyers. I’m not saying if that’s a positive or negative statement for fear of acquiring unwanted points.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top