 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:14 AM Are you saying that you want anarchy Martin? Because that is what we would have without some form of moderation on this site. I'm quite sure a few people have left the site because of the sort of posts that you and others make. I am also sure that they far outweigh the unnamed supporters that you allude to in your post @ 0350. I also don't think you are right to call it political correctness, it is more a common decency and respect for others thing. You don't know everybody that posts on here, so you can't know who is, and who isn't offended by bad language, from what I read we certainly seem to have a lot of churchgoers on this site, and I can't imagine they are overjoyed about it. There are women and kids too, I don't know about your family but I still feel awkward if I swear in front of my 37 year old son and his partner, it's an upbringing thing. You can't afford egocentricity when you're among such a mixed bunch of people. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:32 AM OK, Martin, that's twice. Now, if you say that "orifice" thing a third time, I'm really going to get my feelings hurt. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:50 PM fuckashitpiss as you see it here was the way it was used, as I remember when Candy took the hunchback's hump into her frontal (Joe)orifice. Sorry, Joe. trying to behave but all of that bleeping is unfair and I keep getting PMs from people on why the few politically correct here are ruining some fun for everyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:50 AM Is it fuck-as-hit-piss or fuck-a-shit-piss? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:09 AM Martin, if you called me that once or twice, I'd put up with it - but I probably wouldn't think of it as a compliment. I don't remember "fuckashitpiss" from Candy, and I don't remember the irony. I guess I have to admit that all I remember is the cheap porn... Hey, I was a teenager when I read it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:41 AM A google search turns up three sites whereupon the term 'fuckashitpiss' may be found. However, when the terms are separated, a google search turns up 670,000 sites. When the separated terms are put in quotation marks, two sites turn up. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:06 AM Describing Terry Southern as a pop writer? Yeah, I guess so and more is the pity. The best of the post-beat generation writers, he was a modern day Swift. "Candy" was a beautiful Swiftian take on Voltaire's Candide that he sort of knocked off on the side as he wrote the story and screenplay for "Dr. Strangelove." Simply amazing amount of talent. He also wrote the screenplay for "Easy Rider" but agreed to share the credit with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. But if you are a TS fan, Jack Nicholson's speech around the campfire about Venus is pure Terry Southern. Everything he did was done with an ironic twist.....or ten. His contributions became the standard of style and made him famous enough to be one of the folks on the front of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album. The anarchistic and obscene blended with the ironic. Terry Southern changed the entire landscape of American writing and in the doing so becmae lost himself. Everybody to some degree now imitates parts of Terry Southern while he is relegated back to the background as a pop writer. Truth is that Terry Southern was (died in the mid 90's) and is a bigger influence on American writing and writers than Steinbeck or Hemmingway and a classic piece of satire like "Candy" is sadly only thought of as a cheap porn novel. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: katlaughing Date: 06 Apr 05 - 11:06 PM Jeri, are the Sisters of NO Mercy high church? If so, perhaps some posters have confused a censer for censorship...all that incense can really get up your nose, ya know?**bg** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:55 PM Joe, if I called you Joe Orifice, would you consider it a personal attack? Just asking. BTW, fuckashitpiss was a term used in a pop novel from the 1960s called "Candy" It has nothing to do with me feeling good. Big Mick on the other hand, I am sure got quite a charge out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jpk Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:39 PM let us test the censors and may god bless see,they aint no govt censors around here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Jeri Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:46 PM Shambles, Sister Mary Joe "I'm Too Sexy For My Habit" Offer, of (and obviously speaking for) the order of nuns known as the Sisters of NO Mercy, has gone to look for a Ruler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Deckman Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:43 PM Yes, I can .... and I frequantly do. Bob! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:25 PM The true test Grasshopper is this: Can you say it ten times fast? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Deckman Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:22 PM Joe ... just to help broaden the general level of linguistics within the MC community: "fuckashitpiss" ... in Finnish ... is "santanaan pericoles." We might get a complaint from a mudcatter or two in Rovaniemi, or Helsinki, but I rather doubt it! CHEERS, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Jeri Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:46 PM MMMPph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:24 PM We want you to feel good. We do? Who is this 'we' you speak for?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM And Martin, it's just fine for you to say "fuckashitpiss" occasionally - as long as it isn't part of a personal attack. If saying "fuckashitpiss" makes you feel good, it's O.K. We want you to feel good. -Sister Mary Joe Offer, R.S.V.P.- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:03 PM Well it seemed to hit the spot, and knocked you off track for a while, so all in all I think it was worth it.;~) Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:02 PM fuckashitpiss Just felt like saying that. Now back to regular censorship talk, brought to you by the nuns of Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:58 PM Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply; that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores. It has always seemed to me that we have a choice - we can always carry on trying to set a better example here - or we can use this as an excuse and blame the rest of the world - and behave just as badly and set as poor an example as we like. We are ALL of us accountable for our actions are we not? It has never made sense to me - for us here to judge critise our Governments and official bodies, lok down uopm them and act superior - if we act just as badly and set this example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:54 PM that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores. Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to diagram that sentence. This tape will self-destruct in thirty seconds... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 06 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM The difference between trolling and trawling? As used in the US, trolling involves single lines with multiple hooks; trawling uses nets and weights and scrapes along the bottom of the ocean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply; that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,MMario Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:57 PM Shambles - if you think that name calling has "been left in the shchoolyard" then I have to assume you totally ignore politics, news reporting, movies, television and most forms of public communication - all of which are and have been rife with name calling for decades. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:40 PM silly as the moniker "troll" may be - it is a generally accepted term for a specific type of behavior on the internet. It doe not and never has depended on being anonymous. It is just another silly name to call someone and its use probably says a lot more about those who need to do the name-calling that it does about who is being called names. I am surprised that with all the name-calling or public speculation with other posters about whether this name actually fits me (as if this were important) - it appears to be have been overlooked that this thread was created only as intentional 'Troll - bait'!!! The thread was not the originator's true opinion but posted just to stir things-up (or as a joke) and the originator adopted a bogus handle in order to post it. But there does not appear to be any rush or even any great need to speculate publicly - with other posters - about the orginator's motives, mental condition or any need call the originator of this thread any names. Sadly to some, the term Troll has largely come to mean an expressed view that some may not be agree with. Especially when the poster expressing their honest view in moderate language - makes no attempt at being anonymous. When this is the case - the name-calling and speculation to other posters - about the poster in question - could beeen seen as just another way of making yet another a needless personal judgement of another poster. Perhaps it is time that we - and the internet - grew-up and left all the name-calling back in the schoolyard? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,MMario Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:38 AM silly as the moniker "troll" may be - it is a generally accepted term for a specific type of behavior on the internet. It doe not and never has depended on being anonymous. nor does calling a troll a troll equate to holding the "higher ground" morally - when it is true it is merely identification of a behavior. However - this is a much a judgement call as other types of interaction - such as gender bashing or sexual harrassment - where intent and perception can be radically different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:15 AM Many of us have been led to believe that those posters who were called silly internet names like Trolls - had first to be anonymous? And that those who called other posters names like this - held the moral high-ground and were somehow allowed to indulge in this name-calling of other posters - because they were NOT anonymous. It is a fact that anonymous posting has hardly been generally popular in the past history of our forum - has it? Why would anonymous posting (and general name-calling) be thought to be any more acceptable now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 05 Apr 05 - 08:54 AM Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 05 Apr 05 - 08:47 AM Shambles........Your prior two posts make no sense in any context. I don't see where what you think to be an example is an example at all. Neither of the two examples in the post above seem to illustrate your points but frankly I have not a clue what the points ARE. Making someone and offer they can't refuse - in the Godfather fashion - is a problem. Making someone and offer they claim they cannot understand - is not. Just ignore it...........I am quite sure that there will be many other posters who have no trouble in understanding perfectly. However, they may not be brave enough to post publicly and say this - and this should hardly be surprising. Perhaps one of the points is that no matter what names you wish to call me - (and to call other posters who may express and evidence a different view - or to publicly post to other posters about them) -that it is possible to set the example of never responding in kind - or possible not to respond at all. Given your many posts on the subject so far - none of these options would appear to occur to you. And as you assume to answer for me - no - I do not consider your last post to be an abusive personal attack? - but do you really wish me to provide some more examples here - of what I do consider to be abusive personal attacks upon me - from you and others? The facts are all here and as you would not really expect turkeys to vote for Christmas (or Thanksgiving) - I will leave others to judge - from these facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM Joe Offer's long response in the thread quoted by Shambles. Read this and the immediately following Joe post to get an impression of how long all this goes and how little progress has been made. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:17 AM I know this is going to sound to Shambles like an abusive personal attack, but it's not. Shambles........Your prior two posts make no sense in any context. I don't see where what you think to be an example is an example at all. Neither of the two examples in the post above seem to illustrate your points but frankly I have not a clue what the points ARE. You have the most convoluted logic patterns I have ever seen........or maybe your thinking is on a higher level than mine (no great feat). You do this all the time though. I can barely understand some of your posts and the examples you give serve only to completely confuse the matter. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:59 PM Example of the 'spin' when other posters 'look' like they may make abusive personal attacks. Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion. As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it. Learn to live with it. -Joe Offer- Example of the justification and excuses given when our volunteers themselves indulge in making abusive personal attacks and incite others to follow this example. (This being in reference to the three posts placed earlier at 06.36. Subject: RE: BS: Can't Refresh A Closed Thread : RE jOhn From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 29 Jan 05 - 11:47 PM Well, gee, Shambles. I thought I was just disagreeing - not making abusive attacks. And even what I said last June that you quoted above - expressing exasperation with your constant whining is not what most normal people would consider to be an abusive attack. So, I guess the best thing I can do is to continue to ignore you, since it appears I will continue to be in my current position and do my work the best I can, and you will continue to complain about that. Sounds like a stalemate, doesn't it? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:36 PM Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it. Bob, I'm sorry this happened. Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen. But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:29 AM That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions you asked if this statement was found to be erroneous. The answer is "yes" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: katlaughing Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:46 AM ...posters who may not agree with me and for some reason wish to prevent me from saying it. And to prevent others from responding to the issues raised. Virtually NOTHING has ever been prevented from being said on the Mudcat, nor has there ever been a prevention or responses, except in such extreme cases as MG and garg. Your own verbose threads, repetitious ad nauseum, atttest to that, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 AM It's not marked as being a US term in Chambers, Stu. One definition it gives there is fishing with a [revolving or trailing] lure. I think that is very descriptive of Internet trolling. I must admit I do tend to think of the "fisherman" as the troll you describe. It does seem appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: s&r Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:01 AM What happened to 'Trawl'? Is Troll the US equivalent? In my book a Troll is a mischievous possibly evil mythical beast - sounds much more desctiptive to me. Stu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 04 Apr 05 - 04:55 AM It's funny really, because, having read the whole of this thread and the other, much larger, one, I hadn't come to the conclusion that Roger was a troll. I see him (no disrespect intended Roger) as someone who genuinely feels, perhaps erroneously, that what he says is true. Don – I am well-used to being called many far-more disrespectful names here - from posters who may not agree with me and for some reason wish to prevent me from saying it. And to prevent others from responding to the issues raised. It is a practice that attempts stop any real problem from ever being addressed. There is no problem with disagreement and debate – this is a forum for public discussion. Do you consider the following statement of mine to be erroneous? That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions This is not simply my view - erroneous or not – it is a fact that I have and will demonstrate again (if really required). It will remain a sad fact - until the practice is addressed. You are welcome to express an opinion - that my opinion is erroneous – when I go on to say that this behaviour is sad and the example it sets is unacceptable. You are welcome to express the opinion that this behaviour is fine and the example it sets is an acceptable one to you – if you think that this is the case? But if preventing abusive personal attacks – is the real object of all these anonymous volunteers imposing their personal judgement – does it make any sense if these volunteers indulge in this and encourage others to follow suit and think that it is funny? But this practice by (some of) our trusted volunteers (and their supporters) remains a fact to be addressed - unless you can provide evidence that it is not. What we do have provided have are sad excuses by and for our volunteers - about provocation…. I think that you may agree that there have been many attempts to provoke me into responding in kind here to abusive personal attacks and name-calling? I think you may agree that I have shown that it is perfectly possible to avoid this temptation. Perhaps wisely – for if I did ever respond in kind – I suspect my posts would be deleted – for making abusive personal attacks? Perhaps the views, comments and conduct of some of our trusted volunteers could be given the same close scrutiny, personal judgement - that this poster's honestly expressed views on this important issue are subject to? And some perhaps some attention and comment could be given to the following? Do you think that it really is worth the time and effort of our volunteers to judge, root-out and delete posts claiming the 100th post - whilst many of the abusive (and racist) personal attacks are left in place? My real concern is more with the general and now routine tinkering and imposition of (some of) our volunteer's personal tastes upon the simple freedoms of ordinary posters in the music section and the shaping of our forum by this imposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 05 - 03:16 AM Martin Gibson's posts have been under 100 percent review, and anything that is at all combative is being deleted. Martin has been doing a pretty good job of removing the personal attacks from his own posts. Give him a chance, willya? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM "Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him." -- Epictetus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Deckman Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM I'm going to jump in here with my opinion: I made the decision back in December to stop posting to MC. I did this because I needed I break from the constant crap spewing from martin gibson. At that time, I shared my decision with Joe Offer. He said he regretted my decision but understood my reasons. Just last week, I posted again with a serious question regarding future hand surgery I may have. I was very pleased with the responses and relieved that the thread did not get trashed. What I would like to see happen is for martin gibson to be denied the ability to post again. PERIOD! Censorship? You bet, and it's been a long time coming and very needed. As Joe mentioned earlier, one of the basic tenants of MC membership is "good will." martin gibson has repeatedly demostrated his lack of this quality. I will continue to peruse MC occasionally, but I doubt I'll ever participate as I used to until martin gibson is gone. Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:31 PM Yes spaw, Internet trolling does come from the fishing term (and not from the beasty). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:17 PM HEY!!! I think I got it!!!! "Trolling" is a fishing term where the boat moves through the water with a number of baited lines trailing out from it. That's what a troll does isn't it? And of course that's probably where the term comes from to the net. But to maintain the fishing analogy, Shambles doesn't fit. He's not got a bait out for every thread or even issue. He's a one-trick pony with one subject he harps along continually on and basically only on one thread or two in the current case. In fishing terms, he's not a troller but he's a Trotline...........Yeah, that's it.....a Trotline!!!!! Trotlines are baited hooks hung from one stationary line that attracts fish as they pass.....a great way to catch catfish but just boring as hell. Shambles collects lots of "fish" but he's boring as hell! Not Shambles the Troll folks.....He's Shambles the Trotline!!! Perfect fit!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: katlaughing Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:01 AM You're welcome, Don. Spaw, I agree, I don't think he fits neatly into any one kind of defintion...Tiresome Troll may be a new one, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:30 AM I guess, on thinking it through, you are right, Catspaw. Gets complex doesn't it? Thanks for the definitions, Katlaughing, they clarify the issue. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:09 AM Thanks kat......I guess my problem is that I don't think that Roger really means to be a troll, he just is. Maybe I'm wrong..........Beats me. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:05 AM Hi Don......There is a really interesting site somewhere or another thattalks about "good" and "bad" trolls. Trolling is simply asking questions in a way to provoke discussion so obviously this can be done in a good way, a way to make you think out of the box or see an issue in a different light.....a good troll. The "bad" troll provokes discussion but by asking things in an immflammatory manner which is obviously meant NOT to bring out ideas and debate, but simply to anger. Awhile back on one of these two threads, I suggested that Roger is some kind of new type or different troll as I really don't believe he fits in either category. Now before someone jumps on me "pigeonholing" here, I'm not. I was then and am now simply trying to see the reasoning behind his continuing efforts to make his point(s). A good troll would have stopped long ago and a bad troll .......... well, ya' know, I've known Roger here for a long while and no matter his feeling towards me or I towards him and no matter how far apart we stand on these issues of his, I can't believe he is or has it in him to be the classic "bad troll." So I am lost for a reason as to why this non-debate continues. Everyone and their grandmother has told him to take his issues to Max and this isn't happening. He seems to want a "following" of some sort behind him but he also states he has one (all evidence to the contrary).........So why not go to Max? I ask the question of everyone out there.......Does anyone understand Shambles' motivation here and why he doesn't take his issue(s)to Max at this point? Right now the only reason I see that he doesn't is that he is so taken up with the verbage of his cause and he loves to read his own stuff or perhpas he really is just another troll of some different sort, some good and some bad and all of it a pain in the ass. Anyway, I'm at a loss to understand anything he does anymore...........Maybe he's a Masochistic Troll instead of a sadistic one.(;<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: katlaughing Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM Don, there's some interesting reading about "trolls" at About Trolls. Here's some highlights: Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users. Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash. The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to them and by reminding others not to respond to trolls. When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM It's funny really, because, having read the whole of this thread and the other, much larger, one, I hadn't come to the conclusion that Roger was a troll. I see him (no disrespect intended Roger) as someone who genuinely feels, perhaps erroneously, that what he says is true. I felt that he was too persistent in repeating the argument, but I had no problem with the comments made. I simply disagreed with them. Mick, Thank you for clarifying that for me. I do take your point, tho' I tend to classify as trolls, only those whose postings are offensive, or disruptive, and contribute nothing to the subject under discussion. I have to say that I still don't feel that Roger falls into that definition. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Big Mick Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:59 AM They are correct, Don. I was not singling you out, I was simply borrowing part of your terminology to make the point. I repeat, those of you who carry on are responsible for Roger's response. If you are tired of it, Stop. I don't believe that this person can help himself. Mick |
