THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

@edgarblythe,

I don't consider him a troll, either.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I don't either, maybe.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't consider frank a troll. I just no longer follow his posts, re religion and evolution.

He is 90% emotion, 10% substance, that pretty much makes him background noise regardless of his intent. CI is only slightly better.

I really dont like the term troll, as it assigns intent, and we cant possibly know intend so it is a guess.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

As long as the guess is admitted to be only that, I'm fine with it. Most of the things that guide our behaviors are educated guesses, I suspect.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

As long as the guess is admitted to be only that, I'm fine with it. Most of the things that guide our behaviors are educated guesses, I suspect.

" SHE IS A TROLL" is asserting a fact. This is inappropriate when the assertion can only possibly be a guess. We must stop abusing the english language.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, sometimes I love you, but you become completely unhinged over CI. I don't have you on ignore, but I must say it pains me when you go into asshole mode. You are so bright, you can avoid asshole and still make your point.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

FBM wrote:

As long as the guess is admitted to be only that, I'm fine with it. Most of the things that guide our behaviors are educated guesses, I suspect.

" SHE IS A TROLL" is asserting a fact. This is inappropriate when the assertion can only possibly be a guess. We must stop abusing the english language.

"I consider her to be a troll" is also asserting a fact, and I consider it to be a legitimate position, as long as the person in question has met someone's personal criteria for it.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't consider frank a troll. I just no longer follow his posts, re religion and evolution.

He is 90% emotion, 10% substance, that pretty much makes him background noise regardless of his intent. CI is only slightly better.

I really dont like the term troll, as it assigns intent, and we cant possibly know intend so it is a guess.

Insofar as I am one of the very few people here who uses the expression "I do not know" regularly...when it is evident there are people making assertions on matters they do not know...

...and considering further that I am one of the people who regularly acknowledges being wrong even though I see many people who are wrong refusing to do so...

...I respectfully suggest your notion that I am only 10% substance...has no substance.

Being honest and forthright about not knowing things...is substantive in almost every discussion here.

Acknowledging being wrong...is not only substantive, but essential to decent debate.

0 Replies

Here is the definition of troll from the Urban dictionary:

Quote:

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

(Please note that i haven't found definitions of troll, other than the fairy tale creature, at "traditional" dictionaries.)

There is an interesting article on this subject at Wikipedia. It seems to me that people here are attempting to equate trolls, or trolling with flaming. Personal insults, in my never humble opinion, constitute flaming, not trolling. Based on my online experience, a troll is someone who wishes to be the center of attention, an attention whore, and who is not really interested in the topic. That is why i have said that, although i disaree with and even laugh at Gunga Dim and Herald on the subject of evolution, i don't consider them to be trolls. I had two members and two members only in mind when i started this thread, and mentioned what i considered at trend toward disruption in the topic of evolution--those who follow those threads won't need me to tell them who those two are. The subject of who is, or is not, a troll is not central to this topic. I can't change that people are trying to make it the central issue of the topic, but i can dismiss those who are trashing this thread with self-serving posts.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I guess Setanta must mean that a troll is someone who would come into a thread that purports to be about "evolution being the most controversial subject in A2K)...and spend a lot of time talking about trolling...and even defining it...rather than talking about evolution.

Hey, I disagree with Setanta occasionally...but on this, I think he got it right.

He did say:

Quote:

I had two members and two members only in mind when i started this thread, and mentioned what i considered at trend toward disruption in the topic of evolution--those who follow those threads won't need me to tell them who those two are.

In his opening comments, he noted:

Quote:

We have one long-term member who attacks the idea of evolution on a regular basis, but who does not act like a troll (just a willfully blind idiot).

I follow these threads regularly...and I certainly do not know who Setanta has in mind. In fact, I do not know of any long-term member who attacks the idea of evolution at all. (There are a couple of short-time members who do.) I suspect if we asked everyone here, we could come up with all sorts of names for the people Setanta thinks to be so very obvious.

Setanta is himself an attention whore, who often comes into threads not to contribute, but to attack people and disparage the intelligence of other individuals. Yet he doesn't seem to have the (whatever it takes) to identify the people of whom he is speaking in such unnecessarily depreciating terms...so that we can get some idea of what he rant is all about.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

By that definition, if we were to have a troll trial a lot would depend on proving the defendant's intent. A person who causes disruption is not a troll unless that was his purpose.

I would also point out that one person can't cause disruption by himself, disruption only happens with the cooperation of the disrupted. There is a danger here of people labeling anyone who disagrees with them (or offends them) as trolls.

I think "flaming" is much more damaging to constructive discussion.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

By that definition, if we were to have a troll trial a lot would depend on proving the defendants intent. A person who causes disruption is not a troll unless that was his purpose.

The judicial system has a pretty decent solution to that dilemma. Observe patterns in behavior and establish the probabilities according to the most likely established motives. While keeping an eye out for novelties and exceptions, of course. Being able to present evidence in the form of patterns of behavior is crucial. And, in the case of genuine trolls, not too difficult. [/quote]

Quote:

I would also point out that one person can't cause disruption by himself, disruption only happens with the cooperation of the disrupted. There is a danger here of people labeling anyone who disagrees with them (or offends them) as trolls.

And how is this distinct from victim-blaming?

Quote:

I think "flaming" is much more damaging to constructive discussion.

A brief retort is more damaging than a sustained assault?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I agree - really personal insults even if the guy is an idiot is wrong -- well I've done it - but usually only to people like leonabanks and guys in love with moshi -

so feel free to thumbs me down when I do so.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

And how is this distinct from victim-blaming?

The term "victim blaming" is meaningless. It is so highly subjective. Who is the victim depends entirely on your point of view. In this case, if two people are arguing and one person accuses the other of being a troll, which one is the victim?

We are adults here. If I am offended by something you say... that doesn't make me a victim.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Who is the victim depends entirely on your point of view.

That is a ridiculous statement.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Who is the victim depends entirely on your point of view.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Actually...it is a VERY intelligent statement...and one not considered often enough.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Actually...it is a VERY intelligent statement.

More excuses Frank? If you don't like the facts, ignore them?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Actually...it is a VERY intelligent statement.

More excuses Frank? If you don't like the facts, ignore them?

Interesting come-back. Did you have help with it?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Interesting come-back. Did you have help with it?

It is consistent with what I have always said.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Interesting come-back. Did you have help with it?

It is consistent with what I have always said.

That was almost as interesting. So, let me ask: Did you have help with that one?

1 Reply

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know