NZTR's Social Media ( jackbooted, totalitarian) crackdown...

[Chief Stipe]

24 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Again, you put your finger in the air, make outlandish claims over moi then it becomes the 'hate thomass narritive'

Examples of when, where I've 'crossed the line most of the time"

Put it on a penny black

You have enough air time as it is @Thomass

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, Huey said:

How ? They undertook to do the survey, so release the results. 

Id like to congratulate you this is looking like the dumbest post of the year already & it's only early February!

Another erudite wlll thought out post from @Huey - NOT!

As always your bias clouds you ability to see the point let alone debate it.

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, the galah said:

so this is  social media site.

The current  topic reflects what you typically see on this forum and its got a lot of comment from regular contributors. 

and there you are generalising how you would sum up people who post on here,or say the other channel.

so your either going to say,yes they are as  described or no you weren't meaning the current ones posting.Of course if you weren't meaning the current ones posting then you undermine your own comments on what you describe as  the typical poster.

Also tell me,if many are anonymous like you say,how do you know so much about their personalities,motives and how they feel after posting and how they see the world.

is the reality not,there will be people as you have described but your generlisation is just that. In other words your taling a smaller % of posters and placing greater emphasis that they are representative of all posters and people who comment on social media.Doesn't that reflect on how you see the world as well.

so you post a put down generalisation of social media posters ,while knocking people who post put down generalisations on social media..Whats the point in that 

@the galah you now hold the 2026 Tautological Trophy!

Tell me this do you think that your PED use in Harness Racing conspiracies are actually true?  

[Murray Fish]

2 hours ago, hesi said:

radical views

as in getting to the root cause of any issue! 

[hesi]

10 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

as in getting to the root cause of any issue! 

No

[hesi]

22 minutes ago, the galah said:

so this is  social media site.

The current  topic reflects what you typically see on this forum and its got a lot of comment from regular contributors. 

and there you are generalising how you would sum up people who post on here,or say the other channel.

so your either going to say,yes they are as  described or no you weren't meaning the current ones posting.Of course if you weren't meaning the current ones posting then you undermine your own comments on what you describe as  the typical poster.

Also tell me,if many are anonymous like you say,how do you know so much about their personalities,motives and how they feel after posting and how they see the world.

is the reality not,there will be people as you have described but your generlisation is just that. In other words your taling a smaller % of posters and placing greater emphasis that they are representative of all posters and people who comment on social media.Doesn't that reflect on how you see the world as well.

so you post a put down generalisation of social media posters ,while knocking people who post put down generalisations on social media..Whats the point in that 

The ones that aren't anonymous, you only have to read their FB page and see who their friends are.  Plus, how people post and write gives you a fair idea about their personality and motives

[the galah]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

The ones that aren't anonymous, you only have to read their FB page and see who their friends are.  Plus, how people post and write gives you a fair idea about their personality and motives

fair enough.

I thought you were meaning on here mainly.I don't think it accurately described what i see on here. bit of a yarn is the only social media i do.i don't do facebook.

and i always think bitter is a word used with negative connotations,  to describe genuine feelings people may have about something they have experienced ,or someone,for which any reasonable person could often view having said negative feelings as fair enough. Not always,but often.

But anyway, after rereading what i posted i think perhaps i over reacted to what i thought you were trying to say anyway. 

actually about half an hour ago i googled what best describes a person who makes 3 or more socail media posts a day.It gave 7 traits. Not 1 of them applied to me. not that i believe in putting labels on how people think.

anyways,not to worry,i still made my point.

 

Edited 31 minutes ago by the galah

[curious]

1 hour ago, Huey said:

How ? They undertook to do the survey, so release the results. 

Id like to congratulate you this is looking like the dumbest post of the year already & it's only early February!

I'm advised by NZTR that due to their business, the survey results will be addressed in March.

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

@the galah you now hold the 2026 Tautological Trophy!

Tell me this do you think that your PED use in Harness Racing conspiracies are actually true?  

of course.

why else would i say it.

but of course,you have to move with the times chief.

i haven't mentioned ped use in nz harness for a couple of years now because i don't think its as relevant. I certainly think it still applies to some in australia.

and of course,you and the media,rambled on for years how the all stars were so dominant because of blah,blah,blah.

So what happend chief. What happened when the connections needed for that aspect dried up overseas. They came back to the field didn't they, as i predicted at the time.funny that.

Why did hrnz never do anything about the person with the overseas connections and who was on the client list of the jailed vet in the usa.. Funny that.

anyways,i'm not going to go over that again as we've argued about it enough in the past. 

besides.you do know,i only believe in conspiracy theories if they are true.Time has proven me correct hasn't it.

Edited 10 minutes ago by the galah

[curious]

4 hours ago, hesi said:

NZTR will never engage social media, anyone who thinks that is deluded

Yet that is generally recommended by organisational social media experts. What do you think they should do instead? Ignore it even if they think it is having a negative impact on them?

Edited 10 minutes ago by curious

[curious]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

The ones that aren't anonymous, you only have to read their FB page and see who their friends are.  Plus, how people post and write gives you a fair idea about their personality and motives

Isn't there something hypocritical about the above? You are attacking individual posters based on your assessment of their personality and motives. Why? Because you don't agree with the opinions they express?