Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Win online arguments!

Enjoy battling it out on the bulletin boards? Like getting stuck into a good, pointless argument with only one aim - to win at any cost? Then this guide is for you - simply follow the 12-point guide below and success will be yours!

1. Get friendly
Always refer to your opponent by his/her first name. Your messages will seem warm and friendly, despite the rabid ferocity of their content. After a few exchanges, begin to use a corruption of your opponent's name - begin with "William", then change to "Billy", then change to something like "Billy-Boy". Women don't enjoy having their names shortened either, so make sure that "Mrs. Elizabeth C. Osbourne-Smythe PhD, QC" is always addressed as "Lizzy".

2. Picky! Picky!
Criticising your opponents spelling or grammar will make you look pedantic. Far better to deliberately misread a message, then follow-up with an utterly incongruous statement. And if they make a factual error - no matter how small - make sure you're on hand to remind them of their error as often as possible.

3. Be selective
Selective editing is a good way to avoid engaging with your opponent's better arguments. Simply delete that intelligent, pointed question which ends paragraph three and reply instead to the weaker arguments beneath. Should your opponent post something like "I'm sorry but you're talking carp", snip everything but the first two words then graciously accept his apology.

4. Showboat
Once the argument is in full swing, publicly thank all those people who have e-mailed you privately with their messages of support. Claim that you are too busy to reply to each of them personally at the moment, but promise to continue fighting on their behalf.

5. You've got history
Boasting about how long you've been subscribed to a forum or newsgroup is not advised. Far better to make obscure references to the forum/newsgroup when only thirteen people knew it existed. Fondly recall a similar flame-war which took place in 1989 between "Big Al" and "Phyllis from Kent". If a newly arrived opponent produces a particularly strong argument, tell them that you've already discussed (and won) this debate last year and that you've no intention of repeating your crushing arguments all over again for their benefit.

6. There's lots of you
Always refer to yourself in the plural, as though you are speaking on behalf of the whole newsgroup: "all we are trying to say is..." sounds much more pompous than "all I am trying to say is...". When other people join in the thread, the rules are simple: if they side with you, follow-up immediately and enthusiastically, congratulating them on their courage; if they side with your opponent, ignore the to.ssers.

7. One step ahead
Pre-empt all replies. Tell your opponent that you know exactly how he or she is going to respond to your message because you've seen it all before. List all potential counter-arguments to your position and invite your opponent to choose one.

8. Beer and arguments don't mix
Never, ever, rejoin a long-running argument after ten pints in the pub. Although the devastating logic of your drunken ramblings will seem inescapable to you at the time, your opponent will lap up the incoherent, inconsistent, beer-troubled flaws in your argument and you'll be unlikely to recover. If you've been involved in a particularly vehement argument where you've staked your reputation on the line, get a friend to lock away your PC on pub nights.

9. Bamboozle with links
If your opponent's tenacity is proving too much for you, try a Google counter-attack. This involves posting up an endless stream of vaguely related links, insisting that there's more than enough evidence contained in the 50+ linked sites to crush any counter argument. Ensure you keep the references vague and preferably link to pages that are stuffed full of even more links. If your enemy can't find the evidence they're demanding, blame them for their lack of research skills - after all, you've already provided them with ample resources.

10. I didn't say that!
Never apologise for anything, ever.

11. Play dirty
Think the argument isn't going your way? Simply post one long, highly antagonistic message in which you completely misrepresent everything your opponent has said in the last three weeks. End by martyrishly declaring that the argument has dragged on for too long and that you have no choice but to kill-file/ignore your opponent. Ignore any further messages and/or quietly re-register under a new name.

12. Victory is yours!
Won the argument? Congratulations - but remember to be utterly unbearable in victory. Make generous excuses for your opponent's behaviour ("I know you primary school technicians can be under a lot of stress", "the menopause can be a very difficult time", etc), but retain a calm tone of superiority ("the important thing is to learn from your mistakes"). State that you hope your opponent stays around and reassure him/her that other subscribers are sure to forget all about this sorry business in a couple of years.

Fred - what have your family's qualifications got to do with comments about Cameron at Oxford? He didn't bribe anyone or use a crammer to get his PPE first. Claiming he did shows huge ignorance of the Oxford system.

PS Did you see MM's post above? Copied below in case you haven't. See the trouble you have caused on FredAM.

MightyMicro - 15 Jun 2011 02:08 - 11106 of 11108
I think what concerns me most is the number of useful contributors to MoneyAM that have told me that they, and others that they know, have ceased to visit and contribute to this forum because of Fred1new. A number refer to the site as FredAM.

Despite a number of attempts to make Fred moderate his approach - including a conciliatory private email from me which he chose to make public, to the surprise of many - he has continued his campaign of general and occasionally personal abuse.

He won't read this, because he has filtered me - he says.

My own view is that Fred should be banned from the forums as he contributes nothing but meaningless dissent and has driven away people like hilary (and many others) who contributed something useful.

My 2 cents.

Hello , Fred Scuttle speaking is that Labour HQ ? right then , I demand that Gordon Brown be bought back to sort out this mess that the Tory Eton educated toff's have got us into , WHY you ask ? because he was only Chancellor for 13 year's you never gave the man a chance. CLICK [ sound of laughter as the phone is slammed down ]

Was the squelch button at the top of the thread specifically designed for Fred?

Is Fred the most squelched poster in history?

Join me in the record attempt; squelch him now - you know it makes sense! Give Fred this one attempt at fame!

DC,

Very interesting post. Summates much of what is attempted on this thread and probably many other boards.

Many don't like having their opinions challenged.

Many of these will advocate "freedom of expression or speech" except if the views differ from their own.

It seems that many may feel so insecure in their positioning that they can't tolerate being challenged, but at the same time concentrate denigrate the opposing protagonists.

(Herd behaviour pattern.)

-------------
Isaccs,

Bribery, Cameron?

I was simply trying to clarify the point you seemed to be making.

But, I do consider it less than attractive to have a PM, who appeared to me to make "false expense claims" in the recent past, in charge of the country's economy.

As far as qualifications are concerned, I was pointing out that I have some working knowledge of the University system.

=

As far a MM posting, which you so kindly posted for me to see,

I dislike people who send me what I consider, patronising, or threatening E-mails.

I believe they were provoked by my initiation of the Thread on "Israeli Gaza conflict".

Where the response from a few was an attempt to suffocate any discussion by personal abuse of me.

I wondered why.

================

That out of the way.

If you look back at some of the threads prior to the last general election and the personal abuse being hurled around at politicians of all parties as humour, then perhaps some of my remarks could be considered in the same vein.

=====

Have a nice day!

PS.

Isaccs,

You can start always start off you own personally enlightening thread.

I will try and keep away.

Fred????? Who? Never heard of him. Legend in his own phone box!

"I think what concerns me most is the number of contributors to MoneyAM that have told me that they, and others that they know, have ceased to visit and contribute to this forum because of Fred1new."

Yep, I'm one of those.

(well not one of those, but you know what I mean)

IMHO

In general, there is far too much abuse on MoneyAM's boards and absolutely nothing is ever done about it.

The abuse doesn't just come from Fred. He goes about his postings by merely responding in the most frustrating and provocative ways possible.

And anyone who is an 'insider' and puts themselves up to be a MoneyAM Moderator (eg, Martini(?) or MightyMicro(?)) ought to say that they are acting officially in that capacity and not just attempt to do the job gently or surreptitiously.

So very many people have left and gone elsewhere, that this fact is a joke. However, I feel that part of this, is the utter failure of MoneyAM's management to moderate their own bulletin boards. The point of no-return may well have been breached and now, having left it too late, they simply can't afford to do so and are reliant on 'volunteers' to do the job for them.

Perhaps a re-think is required?

My suggestions:

1. Scrap the 'Traders Room'.
2. Use the change to re-introduce some posting rules - or at least use the change to re-affirm them.
3. Start to police the rules with some official Moderators.

Plateman,

Same as you. This will be my last post on this thread until I see that no one is replying to him.
To all who have made sensible contributions, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed the many debates (and funnies) on here.

regards to all (except you know who) Greek.

Come on then you pundits, who would you vote in? Can you honestly say there is anybody out there who inspires, I think not.

And as for the ranters and ravers I just ignore it. Just go to the Lloyds stream to see an example of ranting, how the ceo sleeps at night with those burning ears lord knows.We also know that if you gather a group of people together there will always be the "kill em all " and the "burn the blighters" lot,mixed in with the "oo!! I dont know I am keeping out of it" But a small percentage think outside the box, look at the other persons point of view, decide what the other party wants to achieve, These are the deal makers, the peace bringers, Which are you??

It seems to me, that Fred might be forced to be made to leave, rather than be forced to mend his posting ways.

If people are made to leave for a reason, which we are not told about and which is not to do with breaking any specific Rule, then I will leave in support. Not in support of someone say, like Fred1new, but in support of the principle.

If you want to see some real abusive and attacking stuff, that needs something doing about it, just take a peep at the postings of In The Land of the B made to Haystacks on the Israeli Gaza conflict?????? (GAZA) thread.

Greek,

How many times do you call wolf!

" If you want to see some real abusive and attacking stuff, that needs something doing about it, just take a peep at the postings of In The Land of the B made to Haystacks on the Israeli Gaza conflict?????? (GAZA) thread. "

And who started that thread ?

Fred
I don't think you understand the problem. Your post about Cameron is a good example. Because of your political leanings and your wish to say anything damaging to the present government you suggested that Cameron is a lighweight as regards education even suggesting that he didn't deserve his place at Oxford or his First Class degree in PPE. This is a very silly attitude. Harold Wilson also obtained a First at Oxford in PPE. Are you suggesting that he is more worthy than Cameron because Cameron has family money? You even bought up the prospect of buying his degree.

It is constant posts like that that bring you involvement in these threads into disrepute,

I don't think you can ban someone like Fred for being a pain in the arse wind up merchant

Stan ,Fred here do you think am a pain in the arse ? you want me to buy what at the chemist

I don't think Fred should be banned either. Maybe Fred should consider what he posts from time to time. It is the constant ranting that gets so wearing.

Actually I also don't think he should be banned. Squelched by everyone maybe but not banned. Bit surprised if really Hilary left just because of Fred rather than just squelching him. Something there doesn't add up.