Re: Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.45 released

[Jenn]

"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2622d2ac3c6c7f7798a26a@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> In article <hparni$c3n$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>> Again ... calling someone a troll is the lazy way of interacting with
>> anyone. If you or I can understand why people do what they do and say
>> what
>> they say and gain understanding of those things, (which takes an effort
>> and
>> some time,) there would be no need to label anyone as a troll.
>>
>
> Jenn,
>
> I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You seem to think that trolls are just
> labeled that because people, even everyone, disagrees with them, but
> that's not the case.

I don't believe 99.9% of the people labeled as trolls deserve the label.

> A troll disrupts by many means, sometimes subtle and not always
> argumentative....

Answer these questions if you would ... How does one disrupt a newsgroup if
people aren't easily offended? Why is there no accountability for how people
react when they respond in anger or out of frustration? Why is it ok to
respond in anger or frustration to someone and then label them as the troll?

> I have many people that I/we disagree with on many subjects and don't
> consider them trolls - just look at politics. The difference between
> someone you disagree with and a troll is that the troll doesn't care
> about the conversation or validity, they keep twisting, like BD does.

What makes you think people discussing politics care about the validity of
any disagreements? Most political discussions I've seen are 99% twisting
what other people say in order to get a reaction? By what you are saying
here, you have some sort of dividing line that doesn't differentiate between
political discussions and discussions that you consider to be caused by a
troll. BTW .. I LOVE debate type of discussions, and have been a part of
such debate groups for many years.... Just thought I'd mention it.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Leythos]

In article <hpb2js$ppc$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2622d2ac3c6c7f7798a26a@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> > In article <hparni$c3n$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
> >> Again ... calling someone a troll is the lazy way of interacting with
> >> anyone. If you or I can understand why people do what they do and say
> >> what
> >> they say and gain understanding of those things, (which takes an effort
> >> and
> >> some time,) there would be no need to label anyone as a troll.
> >>
> >
> > Jenn,
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You seem to think that trolls are just
> > labeled that because people, even everyone, disagrees with them, but
> > that's not the case.
>
> I don't believe 99.9% of the people labeled as trolls deserve the label.

Yes, In most groups I believe 90% of people labeled trolls are not
actually trolls by definition, they just piss everyone off and get
called that.

>
> > A troll disrupts by many means, sometimes subtle and not always
> > argumentative....
>
> Answer these questions if you would ... How does one disrupt a newsgroup if
> people aren't easily offended? Why is there no accountability for how people
> react when they respond in anger or out of frustration? Why is it ok to
> respond in anger or frustration to someone and then label them as the troll?

There are many ways to disrupt a group without offending people,
although "offended" is a unclear thing as many people are at least
bothered if not offended by some things.

One easy way is to divert threads into off-topic areas, much like this
one has gone. Another is to refuse to agree on anything and to change
directions when their position is factually, beyond reproach, shown to
be invalid. Another is to never accept anything, regardless of any
direction or even staying on the same direction.

As for "responding in anger" - that's hard to tell, I've not been angry
with anyone in Usenet for ages, it's really hard to get angry at someone
you don't know, someone that could be completely different than they
appear, could be trolling, etc.... As for calling people "Troll" out of
anger, well, people call others a lot more than just "Troll" when they
are angry with them. Some people don't know how to fight trolls, some
people get sucked in by trolls, some people just don't have the maturity
to deal with trolls.

As an example, I have no ill feelings towards BD, but I'm 110% sure that
he's a troll based on his actions and methods. While he could be a
priest in real life, that doesn't change who he is on Usenet.

You need to learn to look beyond the petty name calling and see why
someone is labeled something - since you don't believe there are Usenet
trolls, while the those of us that were on Usenet before the first troll
do, you might want to reconsider your position.

> > I have many people that I/we disagree with on many subjects and
don't
> > consider them trolls - just look at politics. The difference between
> > someone you disagree with and a troll is that the troll doesn't care
> > about the conversation or validity, they keep twisting, like BD does.
>
> What makes you think people discussing politics care about the validity of
> any disagreements? Most political discussions I've seen are 99% twisting
> what other people say in order to get a reaction? By what you are saying
> here, you have some sort of dividing line that doesn't differentiate between
> political discussions and discussions that you consider to be caused by a
> troll. BTW .. I LOVE debate type of discussions, and have been a part of
> such debate groups for many years.... Just thought I'd mention it.

No, I don't see disagreements as trolling, but, to be honest, making
statements just to get a reaction, when that reaction is not valid in
the group, that is trolling by definition. political discussions, like
any form of discussion, can be trolled, but people can have opposing
views and discuss them in a heated manner without trolling - it happens
all the time. Most trolls are found in Religion, Politics and
Linux/Windows groups on Usenet, they thrive in those areas. A good troll
can actually have people going to hundreds of threads in a technical
group before being exposed.

In the old days we would just issue a cancel bot to wipe their messages
from most Usenet servers, but that power is very frowned on today as
well as most Usenet servers don't accept external cancel messages any
more.


--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Jenn]

"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2622dd241f06176098a26d@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> In article <hpb2js$ppc$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>>
>> > Jenn,
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You seem to think that trolls are just
>> > labeled that because people, even everyone, disagrees with them, but
>> > that's not the case.
>>
>> I don't believe 99.9% of the people labeled as trolls deserve the label.
>
> Yes, In most groups I believe 90% of people labeled trolls are not
> actually trolls by definition, they just piss everyone off and get
> called that.

hey ... we are close to a consensus!! We could meet in the middle and
agree on 95%.. hows that? LOL


>>
>> > A troll disrupts by many means, sometimes subtle and not always
>> > argumentative....
>>
>> Answer these questions if you would ... How does one disrupt a newsgroup
>> if
>> people aren't easily offended? Why is there no accountability for how
>> people
>> react when they respond in anger or out of frustration? Why is it ok to
>> respond in anger or frustration to someone and then label them as the
>> troll?


> There are many ways to disrupt a group without offending people,
> although "offended" is a unclear thing as many people are at least
> bothered if not offended by some things.
>
> One easy way is to divert threads into off-topic areas, much like this
> one has gone. Another is to refuse to agree on anything and to change
> directions when their position is factually, beyond reproach, shown to
> be invalid. Another is to never accept anything, regardless of any
> direction or even staying on the same direction.

All those scenarios are normal rabbit trails that nearly all threads take...
non of which would qualify as being bad as far as I can tell... right?

> As for "responding in anger" - that's hard to tell, I've not been angry
> with anyone in Usenet for ages, it's really hard to get angry at someone
> you don't know, someone that could be completely different than they
> appear, could be trolling, etc.... As for calling people "Troll" out of
> anger, well, people call others a lot more than just "Troll" when they
> are angry with them. Some people don't know how to fight trolls, some
> people get sucked in by trolls, some people just don't have the maturity
> to deal with trolls.
>
> As an example, I have no ill feelings towards BD, but I'm 110% sure that
> he's a troll based on his actions and methods. While he could be a
> priest in real life, that doesn't change who he is on Usenet.

For the record .. I'm sure that he just ticks people off and falls into that
95% of people who don't deserved that label. I'm not discounting how
you feel tho.


> You need to learn to look beyond the petty name calling and see why
> someone is labeled something

Actually, I've made it more of a personal study of people on the internet
and why they do what they do and say what they say... perhaps what I've
observed will end up in a book... which I've posted notes on my bbs that are
like the beginnings of that goal in progress. I'm fairly sure I understand
the name-calling process and why people get labeled.


> - since you don't believe there are Usenet
> trolls, while the those of us that were on Usenet before the first troll
> do, you might want to reconsider your position.

You're assuming I'm a youngster. THANKS! LOL I'm new to usenet, but I'm
not new to the internet, newsgroups, and everything that goes with them.
People are the same in both places.

<snip>
>> What makes you think people discussing politics care about the validity
>> of
>> any disagreements? Most political discussions I've seen are 99% twisting
>> what other people say in order to get a reaction? By what you are saying
>> here, you have some sort of dividing line that doesn't differentiate
>> between
>> political discussions and discussions that you consider to be caused by a
>> troll. BTW .. I LOVE debate type of discussions, and have been a part of
>> such debate groups for many years.... Just thought I'd mention it.

> No, I don't see disagreements as trolling, but, to be honest, making
> statements just to get a reaction, when that reaction is not valid in
> the group, that is trolling by definition.

Now that's just purely your own personal opinion, right? People do that
sort of thing all the time... even in real life and those people aren't
labeled trolls.

> political discussions, like
> any form of discussion, can be trolled, but people can have opposing
> views and discuss them in a heated manner without trolling - it happens
> all the time. Most trolls are found in Religion, Politics and
> Linux/Windows groups on Usenet, they thrive in those areas. A good troll
> can actually have people going to hundreds of threads in a technical
> group before being exposed.

See my previous comment above ..

> In the old days we would just issue a cancel bot to wipe their messages
> from most Usenet servers, but that power is very frowned on today as
> well as most Usenet servers don't accept external cancel messages any
> more.

That's a good thing. I believe in the 1st Amendment. (That's not to say
that some foul posts should be deleted anyway.)


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Leythos]

In article <hpb4q1$6ui$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
[snip]
> > - since you don't believe there are Usenet
> > trolls, while the those of us that were on Usenet before the first troll
> > do, you might want to reconsider your position.
>
> You're assuming I'm a youngster. THANKS! LOL I'm new to usenet, but I'm
> not new to the internet, newsgroups, and everything that goes with them.
> People are the same in both places.

Hardly assumed anything about your age, that's where you get tricked-up,
by assuming more was stated than was actually stated. You could be 90
for all I know, or 13, but it's obvious that you've not been on Usenet
for long based on your views - you will learn, but it's up to you how
fast. Some people believe everyone is good till you find out otherwise,
others believe everyone is suspect until proven one way or the other,
never trust anyone on the Net, anyone, until given reasons to trust
them.

> <snip>
> >> What makes you think people discussing politics care about the validity
> >> of
> >> any disagreements? Most political discussions I've seen are 99% twisting
> >> what other people say in order to get a reaction? By what you are saying
> >> here, you have some sort of dividing line that doesn't differentiate
> >> between
> >> political discussions and discussions that you consider to be caused by a
> >> troll. BTW .. I LOVE debate type of discussions, and have been a part of
> >> such debate groups for many years.... Just thought I'd mention it.
>
> > No, I don't see disagreements as trolling, but, to be honest, making
> > statements just to get a reaction, when that reaction is not valid in
> > the group, that is trolling by definition.
>
> Now that's just purely your own personal opinion, right? People do that
> sort of thing all the time... even in real life and those people aren't
> labeled trolls.

Yes, in real life people are labeled as trolls - while it may not be the
same word in physical presence, the exact same meaning is applied in
real life.

>
> > political discussions, like
> > any form of discussion, can be trolled, but people can have opposing
> > views and discuss them in a heated manner without trolling - it happens
> > all the time. Most trolls are found in Religion, Politics and
> > Linux/Windows groups on Usenet, they thrive in those areas. A good troll
> > can actually have people going to hundreds of threads in a technical
> > group before being exposed.
>
> See my previous comment above ..

And see mine - people in real life can and are viewed as trolls....
You're very naive if you don't see it.

> > In the old days we would just issue a cancel bot to wipe their
> > messages
> > from most Usenet servers, but that power is very frowned on today as
> > well as most Usenet servers don't accept external cancel messages any
> > more.
>
> That's a good thing. I believe in the 1st Amendment. (That's not to say
> that some foul posts should be deleted anyway.)

The first doesn't apply in Usenet, these groups, not the alt groups,
often have charters that provide the base rules, conduct, and use to be
enforced. Once the common idiot found their way to Usenet (and I'm not
saying you are an idiot), and the providers saw Usenet as a loss leader,
the rules went out and people stopped being able to enforce the charters
rules.



--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)