Subject:
|
Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:16:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
713 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
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 the word to use the connotation, then yeah, be defensive. But
definition-wise he was right...
> 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.
I guess that I just see it as the general suckering into response. It's just
that flat insults tend to work better at getting responses than well-tempered
comments. And of course, well-tempered comments are generally the quickest way
to quash flame fests...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
| (...) And that would be incorrect in my understanding of the word "troll." troll (trol) verb 1. To post a message in a newsgroup or other online conference in the hopes that somebody else will consider the original message so outrageous that it (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
| (...) All right then. Stipulating that "troll" can reasonably be used as a neutral term, then I'll agree that I was trolling. Generally I don't accept that definition, however; never have I seen "troll" used with a positive connotation, and it's (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: trolling? (Was all that OT God stuff)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
