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.
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.
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.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
