Display:
From the New User Guide:

"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.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 04:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted, don't PN me on this. It's "fishing for an angry response". See wikipedia:
with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response
You're infuriating sometimes.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 04:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response"

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.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 06:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then go and correct Wikipedia.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru was citing it, not me.

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




Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 05:47:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 05:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, too close.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 05:59:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 07:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
End of story, Ted. Drop it, now, please.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 07:28:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted, the correct response was to leave it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 07:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"the correct response" ? If I thought it was a bit unfair on Twank - one should just keep quiet ? Hmmm - doesn't seem healthy to me.  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 03:34:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted, are you overmedicated or undermedicated? I can't figure it out.

(Here comes the response. Let's watch!)

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can we put to rest this medicated issue, please?  Can we stick to attacking people for their words and attitudes and bad haircuts and leave their illnesses out of it?  

Seriously - that's not cool.  

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's not cool? I am just composing a comment out of Twank quotes that Ted said shoud be applauded rather than condemned. According to Ted I am not trolling, because eliciting a response is encouraging discussion regardless of the nature of the response.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whatever Mig.  You'll note I ignored Twank's comment.  

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
by poemless on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to Ted, by doing so you validated it. And if you had replied, you would also have validated it.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 04:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fortunately, I don't live by Ted's Rule of Logic.  Just ignore him too.

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
by poemless on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 04:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Dec 11th, 2008 at 11:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Once she got upset with Sven - of all people !

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.

by poemless on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 at 03:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series