Subject:
|
RE: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:02:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Since this is an open forum, I address my comments to any who care to
> > respond. With this in mind, I specifically stated that I don't hold you to
> > the literal standard, but I don't excuse others. If you perceive it as a
> > troll, I'm sorry, but the topic is still ripe for discussion.
> So what's trolling, then? Isn't it trying to sucker someone into debating
> something? (albeit civilly or not) Was that the point of your sensationalism
> on Jeremy's point? To get someone *else* to respond who was such a
> fundamentalist? Not that I have anything wrong with trolling for things like
> that in o-t.debate. You want to debate against someone who'll argue the
> fundamentalist point, yes? I don't see anything particularly wrong with it,
> excepting the general negative connotations assumed in "trolling"-- Why be
> defensive about it? (1)
I see your point, but if (hypothetically) I call someone a bonehead,
there's nothing wrong with it either, except the connotation. If Jeremy was
using "troll" to say "bravo to you for throwing down the rhetorical gauntlet
and inviting thoughtful debate," then I apologize to him for my
over-reaction. If he meant "troll" in the standard Usenet sense, then I
think he's off the mark.
> (1) Granted you never specifically said that you didn't consider it to be a
> troll comment, but I took such as implied...
You took it correctly. If any invitation to a debate is a "troll," then
the term isn't especially useful, but I'd admit that it would then describe
what I did. To me, trolling is something along the lines of "vegetarians
are idiots," in which gratuitously inflammatory comments are made primarily
to incite frenzied response, rather than as a comment building reasonably
off of comments already on the debating table.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
| (...) Well, the thing that's wrong with that is the fact that there's nothing *but* connotation there. Being a "bonehead" is sufficiently without good definition, whereas a "troll" post has a definition as well as a connotation. If Jeremy only used (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
