On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:05 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 17 January 2008 18:11 : \____
>>
>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
>>>>>> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
>>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has zero to
>>>>>>> do with the BBC or MS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark has issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
>>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
>>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
>>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
>>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
>>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you reply
>>>> to ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
>>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
>>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
>>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
>>>
>>> I don't expect you to be able to explain why he was abusive - I know the
>>> answer, he's trolling for a response. He is a troll, plain and simple,
>>> as is proven above.
>>
>> No, he is not a troll.
>
> Kier says:
>>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
>
> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
> trolling, Roy!
>
>> His doubt makes an opportunity for debate that
>> encourages exposing and putting forward further evidence. Whether it convinces
>> him or not remains irrelevant to other people who witness the same evidence.
>
> I don't have a particular problem with skepticism, but I don't have much
> time for it when it's mixed with trolling. When skeptics are ignoring
> presented evidence, though, I would also say that such behaviour is
> trolling (ie., trying to provide an irrational response).
>
>> Whether you should bury the hatchet (kf) or not is up to you. If you don't
>> like troll-feeding, then you can set the kf to suit your reading preferences,
>> but what doesn't suit your scope doesn't make the divide between "troll"
>> and "not troll" for everyone else.
>
> The term Troll has a very specific definition - essentially, it means
> someone who works to cause responses from others, mainly by writing
> or claiming unlikely or unbelievable things repeatedly, over and over,
> for the simple purpose of getting responses and keeping threads going.
> Trolling can range from merely responding with abuse (as he does above)
> to making silly claims (like "you *have* to have evidence" whilst ignoring
> the presented evidence).
>
>> The word troll is very offensive because
>> it's usually ascribed to the Earth's scum (people like Gary Stewart, Scott
>> Douglas, Ray Lopez, Bill Weisgerber and others).
>>
>
> Trolling is a part of what they do, but it does not describe the fullness
> of their actions, which go far deeper. The term "troll" is relatively
> mild...
>
> Interestingly, having just done some research into troll definitions, it
> could be that I'm showing my age somewhat, as here is a quote from the
> anti-troll faq:
>
> http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
>
> "Subject: 3.1 The old definition
>
> The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate the
> maximum number of follow ups. These are a very minor irritation,
> and can be considered to be advantageous to newsgroups."
>
> To me, this is incomplete, though, as most trolls try to generation
> irrational discussions rather than reasoned debate. Wikipaedia has a
> similar description here, which I think is rather better:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>
> "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone
> who posts controversial messages in an online community, such
> as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting
> other users into an emotional response. [1]"
>
>
> No, to my mind, Kier is very much trying to do exactly this when he
> posts:
>
>>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
>
> There is no value to this remark, it adds nothing to the debate at all,
> however, it is most definitely designed to provoke an emotional response,
> as the Wiki entry defines (in part) trolling.
I'll tell you what it adds - my strong dislike of being accused of having
an 'agenda', which I do not, of trolling, which I do not, and of being
asked silly questions like do I work for the BBC, when it is plainly
obvious *I do not*.
>
> Hence my viewpoint, and my use of the word troll, against the generally
> accepted meaning. There are, naturally, a huge number of very offensive
> troll types which are well defined, but I don't know how many of them,
> if any, would apply to Kier's interesting, very consistent, and unusual
> (at least for cola) behaviour.
Unusual in what way? I am an advocate. That doesn't mean I have to swallow
all the nonsense that sometimes gets posted here just because it is
anti-MS.
>
> So, that's my case. I'm not trying to suggest that Kier is a mad axe
> murderer, however, he is a troll by all definitions I can find, simply
> because he does troll. I don't have any particularly strong feelings
> about him beyond that.
I do not troll.
--
Kier
|
|
