Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

I saw an ogre once. It was back in the days when I used to drink....she wanted to dance with me but I ran away. Dont Trolls live under bridges ?

Dummy ! I was doing the same thing for nothing but compliments and the sheer pleasure of God-like powers.

You only saw an Orgre once? Damn, you live a sheltered life.

Calling someone a troll, or any other name is simply an excuse not to provide reasoned feedback.

They also have the ignore button that they are very fond of, without realising they are bragging about how bigoted they are...some think you can only apply the word bigot to religion, which is even further proof of their pretense at an education.

The word troll seem to being used as a general insult toward anyone who viewpoints you do not care for.

It a shame that such a useful word is as a result losing almost all of it meanings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-Troll

A point is, this is not a real definition because it is full of subjective criteria. A real definition is a standard that determines set inclusion and set exclusion. This cannot possibly do that. This is a description, which leads to examples that may or may not be understood, or in Aristotelian terms, inducted.

I think it's a very good working definition.
I believe that's what most forum users would believe a troll, or troll-like behaviour to be.
It is not so much about disliking a posters views, or the poster her/himself, as some here are claiming .. it is about a particular type of posting behaviour.

Pedant, however, is a well-understood term.

You flatter yourself.

Yes. Especially if they insult first and then get it back...despite only reacting to them, they declare the respondent a troll.

Will you be calling some of your little darlings here a troll ? Or is the club too well organised for that ? Trolls are only the new boys, right ?

THAT is exactly what it is.

I have always found it difficult to be in a social setting because I have never understood why people respond to their own feelings instead of what was said, as to its truth or falsehood.
I think arguing over feelings is an oxymorn on a philosophy forum to begin with.

I know why they call me a troll if you don't. They want to bully me off the thread and persuade *others that I am a troll on their objective say-so and thus my posts on those evolution threads are not worth reading which is logical eneogh assuming I am a troll which anyone who knows those threads will tell you I'm not as long as it isn't any of those who call me a troll so they can bully me off the thread and persuade.*....others.... and keep re-reading as directed until you see how silly going in a circle is.

So you can easily see that they are not in the least scientific. And they don't like me pointing that out and that it follows that they are in this fight for some other reason than defending science such as using evolution to eradicate Christian morality in those areas not covered by the law. In one case it seems a nun smacking his bottom has done the trick. Their position is subjective. Not scientific. In which case why should anybody take any notice of them. There's an infinite number of ways of bleating you know. Just counting the plausible ones. I can defend using the word "infinite" btw. And once religion hating sets in it grows in argument and pride gets involved. Arguments about religion are unofficially banned in English pubs and drinking clubs. It isn't approved of.

And you don't know who else is reading the thread who doesn't contribute much or not at all.

I have looked it up. There's nothing about it that applies to me. They use it as a term of abuse. Along with many others. Not a large list though. All derivative. The simple fact that some of them resort to ignoring my posts, which is mighty convenient when you sense you are losing the argument, tells you all you need to know about their scientific credentials. In places where they apply science they would be taken out and shot. Modern Christians content themselves with a smirk.

I'm glad you said "might" in "might be a quite apt description of your dealings with the evolution website at least", because you would have been guilty of the same thing had you said "is" instead of "might be" and I might have concluded that you are an atheist although I feel sure not one of the ones who go all the way. But possibly you left the impression you intended to leave in those who don't, or can't, read carefully enough to have noticed your escape clause. Were you assuming readers here don't, or can't, read very carefully?

You might be a great big lunky hairy-legged monster with a voice like a chain saw for all I know.

Sorry to break the bad news, Phil, but this isnt a forum for stamp collectors.....

Exactly !

I apologize, I have never considered reasoning an interst of stamp collectors.

Well I disagree with you on that, Ionus. The Wikipedia definition accurately defines trolls for me.
And it's unlikely that I would be alone in that.
But you can believe whatever you choose to believe, I guess.
And you can disagree with my disagreement with you, too. However, I'm not going to engage in an endless "is so/is not!" dialogue with you about this.

philosophy - the art of collecting stamps
philosopher - one who collects stamps
Philosophising - talking about stamp collections.