| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > Definition:
> > troll (trol) verb
> > 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
> > demands a heated reply.
>
> Helpful example: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16775
Funny, John, but not a very useful comment. I suspect that in this current
debate Richard was referring to you. Your posts seem to fit his definition
well, HIS posts on the other hand have not fit that definition at all.
However I am not sure I agree with his characterization of you (if that is
what was intended by him). While I feel you've been excessively inflexible
in this debate and are not paying attention to what has been said, nor
thinking through the implications of what you yourself say, nor are you
showing evidence of being well read on what the founding fathers said or
did, I don't see it as deliberate trolling on your part.
To me, it's the deliberateness that separates the troll (who does it on
purpose, not because he really cares about the topic, but rather because he
likes to see fights or is just obstinate or ornery) from the merely clueless
or stubbornminded.
So my definition of troll is not congruent with his and you're not a troll
in my book. You really sincerely seem to believe what you are saying and
you're not arguing for arguments sake.
Unfortunately that's cold comfort, as someone who is so wrong and so sincere
is much more dangerous than a mere troll.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
