But what the hell do I know? I just live here. You all obviously are the experts. Blago is a quintessential dumb Pole and Ryan is a poor martyr, is that it? I love that when it comes to discussions of things everyone else knows a lot about, there are high intellectual standards and people have to actually prove their case when making ridiculous assertions, but when it comes to anything I might know about, if I oppose your comments based on ignorance or conspiracy theory I am just being over-sensitive! Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
You all obviously are the experts.
Wait, I didn't say anything at all along those lines. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
See, told y'all: With adult supervision and not being allowed to act on his own free will, little Rahm can do some good. ;) Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And since when do we disallow speculation, especially when clearly stated as such? If you have some actual information you can, you know, supply it. Without getting your panties in a bunch, even.
Same movie, never changes.
(Here comes the response. Let's watch!) In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Nothing more. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
(Here comes the response. Let's watch!)
"trollish", i.e. disruptive of dialogue, or grossly insulting, or really inappropriate.
If it's merely "fishing for a response" I suppose many entirely appropriate comments, merely intended to promote discussion, would be "trolling". Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response
Twank's comment was content-free except for provoking poemless. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
The wikipedia definition, as quoted, is no better - far too general; there's nothing wrong with provoking emotional responses - like being astonished, for example - as I am that what I said could possibly "infuriate" anybody :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Were I to do so, someone else would probably alter the fruit of all my labour - life's too short :-)
But I would not try to do so, as it is far easier to see what is wrong with attempted definitions of such terms, than provide an adequate general definition. This is because they have been developed by various people in different contexts with somewhat different views. Cf.
The phrase was originally coined as "Trolling for flames", where the posters intention was to incite a "flame war", the Usenet intellectual equivalent of a bar fight.
But it can vary, some variants being quite harmless, others not:
Many trolls are just practical jokers attempting to amuse themselves and their audience. Some have genuine animosity toward a particular group or individual that they believe has done them wrong. Some are just loathsome, contemptible hooligans bent on disrupting the ordinarily peaceful exchange of useful information for their own perverted pleasure. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.troll/msg/bc2e71e19c590d8e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.troll/msg/bc2e71e19c590d8e
Twank went to close to turning a minor tiff into a major blowup with a needlessly provocative comment (capped with the joke about medication) and I drew the line, end of story. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Twank's comment was content-free except for provoking poemless.
Actually I don't agree, the content is clear; he's claiming that she tends to over-react quite often. In my view that's true, which is why I said she has a short fuse (cf. someone's comment). Once she got upset with Sven - of all people ! - who was politely puzzled about how he could possibly have given offense.
Twank's prediction about her response could be seen as a way of dissuading her from doing so, rather than provoking her. If she did respond he could claim to be vindicated, while if she didn't, he could claim to have made her reconsider her pattern of behaviour. Perhaps we should applaud rather than condemn :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
(Here comes the response. Let's watch!) Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Seriously - that's not cool. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Did I mention this whole thread is an example of why I haven't been around ET much, lately? Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Which means that Ted's statement that Twank's comment is a-okay is not subject to empirical refutation based on your reaction or lack thereof. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Did I mention this whole thread is an example of why I haven't been around ET much, lately?
Oh come on - what has been SO terrible about it? We've had an interesting discussion of the nature of trolling :-) What's the big deal? Poemless isn't upset - she's been very "sane" about it :-)
I don't need mood medication - apart from the occasional glass of something alcoholic - and then fortunately it's a want rather than a need.
By the way - I realise being a FPer is a thankless task - but don't take it too seriously - or the trolls will be after you :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
LOL! Of all the people, too... LOL! Ok, that was funny. You get funny point for that. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
