14
   

I don't understand engaging with trolls.

 
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2012 09:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, if u put 2 mechanical engineers next to each other,
looking at the same information, as one of them explains extant problems
and argues their optimal remedies, the other shoud understand the logic thereof; yes ??
Yes, he should. Its very likely that he will, but still, the chance of him not understading is there. Why wouldnt he? I dunno, maybe he is or has become insane, or maybe he got his diploma without actually taking the course through corruption, but its certainly possible.

Sanity is actually a good analogy. You may have something you are confident everyone will understand because any sane person would... but not everyone is sane. Off course, who is or isnt sane is wildy open to interpretation.

Anyway, the point is that even if a crushing majority of people agree on something, there will always be someone that, for whatever reason, does not.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2012 10:32 pm
I don't think that telling someone they are being an asshole is trollish. The troll tries to make him- or herself, or his or her obsesssion, the subject of the thread. Telling someone he or she is an asshole only becomes trolling if you follow him or her around from thread to thread to tell them that, without reference to what he or she may have said. There are all too many people here who do that, and in my experience, DD rarely does that.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2012 10:38 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

DrewDad in Chai's "Girl in Italy" Thread.

Yeah, that was a classic.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2012 11:06 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I don't think that telling someone they are being an asshole is trollish. The troll tries to make him- or herself, or his or her obsesssion, the subject of the thread. Telling someone he or she is an asshole only becomes trolling if you follow him or her around from thread to thread to tell them that, without reference to what he or she may have said. There are all too many people here who do that, and in my experience, DD rarely does that.
Well, it depends from one's interpretation of course, but as far as I know, in most of the internet, "troll" is someone who posts with the deliberate intent of irritating others for fun, and dont really take the discussion/the insults hurled against them seriously. So someone that stalks others or de-rail threads out of obsession wouldnt be a troll, just a... obsessive person, or maybe the internets have another term for that =)

Tvtrope's definition is probaly the closest to the truth of the internets:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2012 11:20 pm
@manored,
Perhaps you'll find in your heart of hearts to forgive me if i don't hew to your line of thinking.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 05:42 am
@manored,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Well, if u put 2 mechanical engineers next to each other,
looking at the same information, as one of them explains extant problems
and argues their optimal remedies, the other shoud understand the logic thereof; yes ??
manored wrote:
Yes, he should. Its very likely that he will, but still, the chance of him not understading is there. Why wouldnt he? I dunno, maybe he is or has become insane, or maybe he got his diploma without actually taking the course through corruption, but its certainly possible.

Sanity is actually a good analogy. You may have something you are confident everyone will understand because any sane person would... but not everyone is sane.
Off course, who is or isnt sane is wildy open to interpretation.
I agree with your analysis.





manored wrote:
Anyway, the point is that even if a crushing majority of people agree on something,
there will always be someone that, for whatever reason, does not.
Yes and whether he is right or rong remains an open question.
I understand that Columbus's opinion that the world is round
was a minority point of vu.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 05:55 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I understand that Columbus's opinion that the world is round
was a minority point of vu.


Sorry but that is a complete myth as it was well known since for at least a thousand years before Columbus times that the world was a sphere and thanks to a Greek mathematician working in the city of Alexandria how large the earth happen to be.

Columbus claims that he could reach India by sailing West was base on his wrong assumptions on the smaller size of the earth that went against the accepted numbers for the circumference that turn out to be correct.

I always found that myth annoying for some reason.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 07:22 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
I understand that Columbus's opinion that the world is round
was a minority point of vu.
BillRM wrote:
Sorry but that is a complete myth as it was well known since for at least a thousand years before Columbus times that the world was a sphere and thanks to a Greek mathematician working in the city of Alexandria how large the earth happen to be.

Columbus claims that he could reach India by sailing West was base on his wrong assumptions on the smaller size of the earth that went against the accepted numbers for the circumference that turn out to be correct.

I always found that myth annoying for some reason.
Again: THANK U for leaving out the mistakes.

I am seriously grateful to u for that.


Tho I will not challenge your assertion of Greek knowledge,
I remain skeptical of the adequacy of communications & of literacy
from ancient Greece to Spain of 1492. This is NOT to imply that
the learned men of medieval Spain were ignorant of Greek knowledge.
To them, it was probably esoteric knowledge
(perhaps comparable to our current rudimentary [or pre-rudimentary]
understanding of quantum reality).





David
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 07:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The fact that the Earth is a sphere was well-known to sailors, regardless of their classical education.

They were well aware that the tops of ships became visible long before the bottoms of ships, and what the cause for that is.

BillRM is right in this one instance, that Columbus made a horrible error in his calculations. Had the Americas not been there to rescue him from his mistake, his crew would have run out of water.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 08:04 am
@manored,
Since anyone generating amusement from the disruption is not something that I can positively measure, I offer the suggestion that we only consider the disruptions.

Minor, incidental, or occasional disruptions do not rise to the level of trollery, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 08:33 am
Personally, i was unaware that there was more than one internet.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 03:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Tho I will not challenge your assertion of Greek knowledge,
I remain skeptical of the adequacy of communications & of literacy
from ancient Greece to Spain of 1492. This is NOT to imply that
the learned men of medieval Spain were ignorant of Greek knowledge.
To them, it was probably esoteric knowledge
(perhaps comparable to our current rudimentary [or pre-rudimentary]
understanding of quantum reality).


Sorry this knowledge was even known to the Roman Empire intellectuals who respect Greek science and mathematic long before 1492.

It was not a secret in Spain and once more it was Columbus if memory service me correctly who placed the circumference at around 18,000 miles not the larger and more correct number that then exist in Spain.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 03:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]

This idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:

"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching." [2]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead.

However, among Medieval artists, depictions of a flat earth remained common.[citation needed] The exterior of the famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch is a Renaissance example in which a disc-shaped earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4]

Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[6] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat," and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[7]

Contents [hide]

0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 03:32 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Perhaps you'll find in your heart of hearts to forgive me if i don't hew to your line of thinking.
Hehe. Just me being picky over the meaning of words. Ignore it =)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 03:37 pm
@manored,
Not picky, but choosy. Picky implies that you're right, rather than that you are using a definition which you prefer. Keep in mind that even if one defines a troll as simply being disruptive, the point is that the troll makes him or herself the center of attention, or attempts to do so. Those trolls who make their obsession the center of attention, or attempt to do so, are just a subset of the former.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 03:48 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Keep in mind that even if one defines a troll as simply being disruptive, the point is that the troll makes him or herself the center of attention, or attempts to do so


Because of course you totally disregard the claim made by the speaker that they are trying to advance an argument for good cause, thus you slip into your assumption that the speaker whom you do not want to hear from is a defective. I am curious as to know how you came upon your low opinion of people, and your high opinion of your powers to know the hearts of minds of people whom you have never met?
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 04:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Once one has heard and considered a claim, it is not necessary to reconsider said claim each time it is proffered.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 04:06 pm
In the case of this particular member, and this type of obsessive-compulsive trolling, not only are the claims advanced ad nauseum, they are often advanced without reference to the linked stories (which in fact often contradict the claims), or without reference to the original subject introduced by the author of the thread. It is that which makes the trolling really offensive, quite apart from the unnecessary repetition.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 04:09 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Once one has heard and considered a claim, it is not necessary to reconsider said claim each time it is proffered.


What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?? The use of the term "troll" assumes that the claim is so worthless that it should not have been offered, which is light years away from " I dont need to consider this argument again" . Maybe someone else has not made up their mind. Maybe the right of the speaker to speak trumps your right to have the public spaces sanitized to your personal preference level.

We can see now that you have started a thread about "trolls", but that your personal definition of the term is so broad that the word has little meaning.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 04:26 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Personally, i was unaware that there was more than one internet.


How trollish of you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 08:02:44