"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)