One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned. .....
Also, did the reporter not state the following:
"An internet troll, that's what they look like"
Therefore, is the moral obligation to investigate a self refuting concept, being relative to the concept of racism?
. . . . David isn't necessarily a troll, but he trolls with his gun obsession very often.
If the topic is not guns, ranting about guns is inappropriate.
Izzy?? Hello ??
izzythepush wrote:In contemplation of your post,Council housing is social housing provided by the council.
A sink estate is a particularly run down example, riddled with all
sorts of problems. Nobody would actually choose to live in one.
They gave rise to the term postcode prejudice.
I looked at the video again, but I am at a loss to understand
what is distinct, in a negative sense, about the realty in question.
I was looking for run-down conditions surrounded by uncollected trash,
but I saw only 1 discolored corrugated metal security door,
in otherwise clean conditions.
( Do u know whether he lived there ?)
I remember taking cabs from the Railroad Station in Albany, NY
( the capital of NY ) to the NY Court of Appeals. I needed to close my eyes,
for the repugnant conditions of lack of maintenance:
a horrible assault upon the sensibilities! Gross n foul; it was UGLY.
Thay mostly consisted of failure to paint the real estate.
The paint was falling off, everywhere; extremely run-down conditions, in contrast
to what I saw in this video.
I don' t get the point. Maybe thay r bad on the inside; I dunno.
Did u see something in particular that led u to your negative
evaluation of the area? I 'm just curious regarding your evaluative processes.