Re: Stan's Advice, ENOUGH ALREADY !!!


Briarroot wrote:
> rkzenrage wrote:
> > Justin Holmes wrote:
> >
> >>Man, you have stumbled in at a fairly ridiculous time. I didn't read
> >>most of the threads, but I don't think anyone was making ad hominem
> >>attacks on stan, just disagreeing with his adivice. I didn't have much
> >>to say, but there is no way in hell I'm not using cleaners in my pipes.
> >
> > You obviously did not read what Scoop wrote just before you posted.
> > LOL!
> > How you say something makes it a flame, regardless of how "valid" the
> > point is.
> > Making a thread just to be a jerk about someone makes them a troll.
>
> Yet another silly post! Nobody ever said Stan isn't a wonderful guy.
>
> And BTW, you're another who apparently doesn't know what the term
> "troll" actually means.
>
> troll 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
> posting on Usenet
> designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post
> itself. Derives from
> the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream
> "trolling", a style
> of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.
>
> The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and
> flamers to make
> themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
> conveying to
> the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If
> you don't fall for
> the joke, you get to be in on it. (See also YHBT.)
>
> 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
> specious arguments,
> flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email
> for no other purpose
> than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable
> by the fact that they
> have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply
> want to utter flame bait.
> Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
> characteristics, and
> as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in,
> "Oh, ignore him, he's
> just a troll." (Compare kook.)
>
> Conclusion: In my opinion D. Perry did not post a troll and he wasn't
> "being a jerk", he was merely summarizing his dissenting opinions about
> the subject of several of Stan's threads. If you want to stretch the
> definition of the word troll, as it appears that you do, then you'd got
> to conclude that Stan's series of posts come closer to the intended
> meaning of the word than those of his critics! I think you're wrong
> however, as are the others who've adopted this line. Both D. Perry and
> Stan posted well considered opinions which happen to be opposed, that's
> all. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to come charging in to
> defend Stan, because Stan is not being criticized personally. His
> *method* is being criticized. Stan's attitude: that his is the One True
> and Only Method; implying that no one else knows what they're doing, has
> also rubbed a few people the wrong way, but what else could be expected?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Parker ... Samarra in a Savinelli Punto Oro bent billiard
Nope, Stan's posts were to share his opinion on smoking, regardless of
what anyone thinks of that opinion.
How one replies to those, or any thread/post can make it a
reasonable/polite dissension or flame. But you know this.
This piece of *** thread is just a flame and troll, nothing more and
certainly nothing less.
Your definition fits perfectly, thanks for the help.
Namaste'
Robert.

.

Loading