• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

RLB will be gone before next season

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rocky77 said:
😂😂😂 Dear me
I didn't even know trophy points is a thing
Click to expand...
I got ‘told off’ for having recently resided in Oz which thus rendered me knowing nothing about football or Safc. All that because I disagreed with a forum meathead who believes clubs like Brighton and Bournemouth aren’t proper clubs because their fans aren’t git tough
Amazing the criteria some on here believe is necessary to have a meaningful opinion
 
Secret Visage said:
Are you actually ill?
Click to expand...


When an opponent in an argument resorts to questioning your mental state—a tactic known as an abusive ad hominem attack or "poisoning the well"—it typically indicates a state of high emotional arousal, defensiveness, and a lack of substantive arguments. Instead of engaging with the topic, they are aiming to discredit the person, often because they feel threatened, frustrated, or unable to win through logic.

The psychological states underlying this tactic include:
High Defensive Aggression: When people feel their worldview or ego is threatened, they may lash out to protect their self-image.
Frustration and Impatience: An inability to argue effectively on the merits of the case often leads to frustration, prompting a shift from rational discourse to emotional warfare.
Need for Power and Control: Attacking an opponent’s sanity or mental health is a way to invalidate them, establish dominance, and "win" the argument by silencing the other person.
Cognitive Load and Exhaustion: When an argument becomes too complex or exhausting, people may resort to personal attacks because it is easier than engaging with the facts.
Low Emotional Intelligence: Individuals with low emotional intelligence are more likely to resort to hostile, unproductive, and "below the belt" tactics when faced with opposing views.
Narcissistic Tendencies or Defiance: In some cases, this behavior is linked to an inability to consider other views, leading to a tendency to blame the opponent for any conflict.
In essence, questioning an opponent's mental state is a stalling tactic or deflection used to mask a weak position, intended to make the target feel small or unstable.
 
brisbanemackem said:
12500 possts in less than 4 years or circa 60 posts a week suggests your input is emotionally driven and ill considered.

My input in 20 years is more restrained to around 2 posts a week. I only post when i believe I have a valid point to make
Click to expand...
IMG_5787.gif
 

Attachments

You must be logged on to see attachments
brisbanemackem said:
When an opponent in an argument resorts to questioning your mental state—a tactic known as an abusive ad hominem attack or "poisoning the well"—it typically indicates a state of high emotional arousal, defensiveness, and a lack of substantive arguments. Instead of engaging with the topic, they are aiming to discredit the person, often because they feel threatened, frustrated, or unable to win through logic.

The psychological states underlying this tactic include:
High Defensive Aggression: When people feel their worldview or ego is threatened, they may lash out to protect their self-image.
Frustration and Impatience: An inability to argue effectively on the merits of the case often leads to frustration, prompting a shift from rational discourse to emotional warfare.
Need for Power and Control: Attacking an opponent’s sanity or mental health is a way to invalidate them, establish dominance, and "win" the argument by silencing the other person.
Cognitive Load and Exhaustion: When an argument becomes too complex or exhausting, people may resort to personal attacks because it is easier than engaging with the facts.
Low Emotional Intelligence: Individuals with low emotional intelligence are more likely to resort to hostile, unproductive, and "below the belt" tactics when faced with opposing views.
Narcissistic Tendencies or Defiance: In some cases, this behavior is linked to an inability to consider other views, leading to a tendency to blame the opponent for any conflict.
In essence, questioning an opponent's mental state is a stalling tactic or deflection used to mask a weak position, intended to make the target feel small or unstable.
Click to expand...
Seems like the answer is yes.
 
brisbanemackem said:
When an opponent in an argument resorts to questioning your mental state—a tactic known as an abusive ad hominem attack or "poisoning the well"—it typically indicates a state of high emotional arousal, defensiveness, and a lack of substantive arguments. Instead of engaging with the topic, they are aiming to discredit the person, often because they feel threatened, frustrated, or unable to win through logic.

The psychological states underlying this tactic include:
High Defensive Aggression: When people feel their worldview or ego is threatened, they may lash out to protect their self-image.
Frustration and Impatience: An inability to argue effectively on the merits of the case often leads to frustration, prompting a shift from rational discourse to emotional warfare.
Need for Power and Control: Attacking an opponent’s sanity or mental health is a way to invalidate them, establish dominance, and "win" the argument by silencing the other person.
Cognitive Load and Exhaustion: When an argument becomes too complex or exhausting, people may resort to personal attacks because it is easier than engaging with the facts.
Low Emotional Intelligence: Individuals with low emotional intelligence are more likely to resort to hostile, unproductive, and "below the belt" tactics when faced with opposing views.
Narcissistic Tendencies or Defiance: In some cases, this behavior is linked to an inability to consider other views, leading to a tendency to blame the opponent for any conflict.
In essence, questioning an opponent's mental state is a stalling tactic or deflection used to mask a weak position, intended to make the target feel small or unstable.
Click to expand...
Dear me have a can of fosters and chill
 
brisbanemackem said:
When an opponent in an argument resorts to questioning your mental state—a tactic known as an abusive ad hominem attack or "poisoning the well"—it typically indicates a state of high emotional arousal, defensiveness, and a lack of substantive arguments. Instead of engaging with the topic, they are aiming to discredit the person, often because they feel threatened, frustrated, or unable to win through logic.

The psychological states underlying this tactic include:
High Defensive Aggression: When people feel their worldview or ego is threatened, they may lash out to protect their self-image.
Frustration and Impatience: An inability to argue effectively on the merits of the case often leads to frustration, prompting a shift from rational discourse to emotional warfare.
Need for Power and Control: Attacking an opponent’s sanity or mental health is a way to invalidate them, establish dominance, and "win" the argument by silencing the other person.
Cognitive Load and Exhaustion: When an argument becomes too complex or exhausting, people may resort to personal attacks because it is easier than engaging with the facts.
Low Emotional Intelligence: Individuals with low emotional intelligence are more likely to resort to hostile, unproductive, and "below the belt" tactics when faced with opposing views.
Narcissistic Tendencies or Defiance: In some cases, this behavior is linked to an inability to consider other views, leading to a tendency to blame the opponent for any conflict.
In essence, questioning an opponent's mental state is a stalling tactic or deflection used to mask a weak position, intended to make the target feel small or unstable.
Click to expand...

must say, I didn't think you'd have the necessary skills to use co-pilot or Chat GPT 👏
 
brisbanemackem said:
When an opponent in an argument resorts to questioning your mental state—a tactic known as an abusive ad hominem attack or "poisoning the well"—it typically indicates a state of high emotional arousal, defensiveness, and a lack of substantive arguments. Instead of engaging with the topic, they are aiming to discredit the person, often because they feel threatened, frustrated, or unable to win through logic.

The psychological states underlying this tactic include:
High Defensive Aggression: When people feel their worldview or ego is threatened, they may lash out to protect their self-image.
Frustration and Impatience: An inability to argue effectively on the merits of the case often leads to frustration, prompting a shift from rational discourse to emotional warfare.
Need for Power and Control: Attacking an opponent’s sanity or mental health is a way to invalidate them, establish dominance, and "win" the argument by silencing the other person.
Cognitive Load and Exhaustion: When an argument becomes too complex or exhausting, people may resort to personal attacks because it is easier than engaging with the facts.
Low Emotional Intelligence: Individuals with low emotional intelligence are more likely to resort to hostile, unproductive, and "below the belt" tactics when faced with opposing views.
Narcissistic Tendencies or Defiance: In some cases, this behavior is linked to an inability to consider other views, leading to a tendency to blame the opponent for any conflict.
In essence, questioning an opponent's mental state is a stalling tactic or deflection used to mask a weak position, intended to make the target feel small or unstable.
Click to expand...
You're just trophy score hunting ya tinker
 
brisbanemackem said:
When an opponent in an argument resorts to questioning your mental state—a tactic known as an abusive ad hominem attack or "poisoning the well"—it typically indicates a state of high emotional arousal, defensiveness, and a lack of substantive arguments. Instead of engaging with the topic, they are aiming to discredit the person, often because they feel threatened, frustrated, or unable to win through logic.

The psychological states underlying this tactic include:
High Defensive Aggression: When people feel their worldview or ego is threatened, they may lash out to protect their self-image.
Frustration and Impatience: An inability to argue effectively on the merits of the case often leads to frustration, prompting a shift from rational discourse to emotional warfare.
Need for Power and Control: Attacking an opponent’s sanity or mental health is a way to invalidate them, establish dominance, and "win" the argument by silencing the other person.
Cognitive Load and Exhaustion: When an argument becomes too complex or exhausting, people may resort to personal attacks because it is easier than engaging with the facts.
Low Emotional Intelligence: Individuals with low emotional intelligence are more likely to resort to hostile, unproductive, and "below the belt" tactics when faced with opposing views.
Narcissistic Tendencies or Defiance: In some cases, this behavior is linked to an inability to consider other views, leading to a tendency to blame the opponent for any conflict.
In essence, questioning an opponent's mental state is a stalling tactic or deflection used to mask a weak position, intended to make the target feel small or unstable.
Click to expand...

Are you the owner of the invertthewing twitter account?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top