The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Evidently I wasn't included when you said "NO ONE" thanked him. Silly me for thinking I was.

I think its pretty clear who the rude one is.

By the way, a free ebook that perpetuates the nonsense that he posts, just because it happens to have a picture of the watch he brags about endlessly (and probably no longer owns) on the cover, is far from a gift in my mind.

Be sure to thank me after I send you a gift letter about why im so great.

_________________
-RJ

Call me a masochist, but I just read the "book." I want the last ten minutes of my life back, as well as my breakfast.

The famous "Watch Snob" agrees with me also....

No self-respecting man above the age of 25 should be wearing anything less than a $5,000 watch, with an in-house movement of course. If you wear a nice watch, you’ll be surrounded by successful people and live a lucrative life. You show me your $100 Skagen, and I'll show you the $100 Scotch that Sheamus and I drink every night at the club. You tell me who's having more fun.

_________________
I need more watches....

So, by this rationale, am I to understand that any man above the age of 25 who cannot afford a watch that costs at least $5000 should not respect himself?


I don't know who's having more fun, but I can tell you who's the bigger A-hole.

why do we feed the trolls???

im guilty of this too even by posting on this. but we do need to stop feeding the trolls

That's why Archie42 makes posts like this latest one (and the duplicate of that post on a new thread that I locked up because it was a duplicate...... and his similar Breitling-based Watch Snob post in the Breitling sub-forum) - to elicit a heated response from people. No other reason.

Like I said on that thread, if people don't take the bait........

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

If we know conclusively he is a troll, then my opinion is he should be banned. If the moderators' position is people shouldn't respond to Archie's posts because they are only made to provoke inflamed responses, that's essentially an acknowledgment that Archie has nothing positive to contribute to the forum. Why, then, keep him around? I don't understand the rationale of allowing him to post, then chiding other members for responding to him. If you're that concerned about it, stop it at the source. Until such time as he is banned, I'll consider each one of his posts on its own merits and respond accordingly. Honestly, since he wrote an e-book with the same proclamation he made in this thread (that any man over 25 should wear a $4-5K+ watch), I have to assume he is sincere in that belief. If he is, he isn't being a troll for posting that belief, and I'm not feeding a troll by responding to it.

OK, firstly Archie42 hasn't broken any site rules which means he hasn't been banned, and nor will he be until such time as he does break site rules. Secondly I've never once called him a troll. However, he does tend to post things that are quite clearly designed to elicit a response from people.... and usually a negative response, as you yourself have quite clearly demonstrated in this thread. I think you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out was more than likely the intention anyway. For example, why draw attention to a blog that bashes Breitling's on a Breitling forum, if not to fire things up? Still not breaking any forum rules, mind.

That said, Archie42 is more than capable of contributing positively to the forum. Take his VC restoration thread for instance, which rather ironically hasn't garnered a single reply. That was actually an interesting thread, but no-one responded.

Thirdly, no-one is being "chided" for replying to any post on here. I'm sure you can understand that it was merely a suggestion as Archie42's threads often get rather heated. Frankly I don't care what anyone chooses or chooses not to reply to on here, and if you want to get into heated discussion by responding to threads that are designed to pull your strings then that's fine, be my guest.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

OK, fair enough. Personally, I'd boot his ass out the grounds that he is an irredeemably massive turd whose idiocy outweighs whatever scant positive contributions he might make to this forum. However, I'm hard-pressed to think of a rule I could create to justify it that wouldn't also unnecessarily lead to a restriction on the kind of freedom of expression we enjoy here. As such, I just added Archie to my "foe" list, making him the first and so far only person on it. He's on permanent ignore status.

Thanks for being a great moderator. (And no, that's not sarcasm.)