Re: Watch how fast this happens

On Aug 4, 2:44 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by el cid
<elcidbi...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Aug 3, 6:44 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by el cid
<elcidbi...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Aug 3, 1:47 pm, Picasso Renoir Hilton <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 3, 12:34 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 2, 2:34 pm, Tapestry <estry....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All your babbling here you miss the whole point.

What was your point?

Dwib

So far no one in here can read a subject line and put 2 and 2
together ...

The point was obvious from the headline without reading
the post.

No, it wasn't, since the subject fits both the pro and anti
positions, depending on interpretation.

Yes the lack of a position respective to origins was
obvious and so I felt was the intent. You confirm
below.

However, no matter whether it smelled of WD-40,
Berkley Gulp Alive Spray Attractant or gasoline, it was
shiny and spinning as the line tugged it along behind
the boat and they could not help themselves. It has
become instinct.

And the trollers are just as proud of instigating that
reaction as is the moron who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded
theater. And just as stupid. Perhaps no one should refute
their idiocies?
You'll have to remind me of where there were refutations
in this thread.

Tough to refute a non-assertion, since the OP didn't state
his point. And still hasn't. But assumptions were made
regarding the intended point, based on the OP's history, and
that point *was* refuted.

And that was the point. To get people to jump to conclusions
and fall all over themselves refuting something that was
never said. It was as if they were following his script.
Yes, it was obvious to me that this was the intent.
Are you really saying you did not see as much?

The first response seems to have been
an insult even though there wasn't any idiocy to refute.

You'll have to refresh my memory. *My* first post was a
request for clarification, and didn't include an insult. The
exchange:

The first response was by Chris who simply replied
"jealous"?

All your babbling here you miss the whole point.

You had a point? What was it? A simple link to a website,
even when a quote from the site is included, doesn't    convey
much about your agenda.

Or is asking for clarification, and pointing out the
ambiguity of the post, an "insult"?

I was referring to the collective response. I chose that
context because my perception was, and remains, that
he was trolling for the standard spectrum of attacks.
Even your more reserved response reads like someone
bristling for a fight. The antagonist has picked up
a metaphorical stick and is running it backs and
forth across the chain length fence of a kennel and
getting the dogs to snarl.

If his motivation as less obvious, it might not look
as bad but as it was so very very obvious, it tends
to show a lack of awareness on part of many posters.

I'm not saying this to be nasty. This is how I see
it unfolding, it was obvious to me this was his
intent, and I think that on the whole, he has
elicited more of less exactly the response he wanted.


Ignoring the post would indeed have been the proper
thing to do.

Possibly. But wouldn't that have been insulting?

In the context of the transparent trolling nature
of the posting, it would certainly have been
frustrating to him. As insults go, it's a kind
I could get behind.

But instead a host a hungry large mouth bass were
lurking and awaiting for something they might snap
at. Norman and Harshman had the sense to pre-empt
with some developmental biology. Isaak pointed subtly
pointed that it was a simplistic naked troll.

Yep. And others asked for clarification, with varying
degrees of politeness.


What would make sense is to show some restraint and
wait for actual idiocy to be posted and then, if
no better answer has already been posted, provide a
correction. Dogs lurching forward to snarl and gnaw
at a few potential bones of creationist nonsense
doesn't really do much good.

Nice imagery. Perhaps you think it's not insulting? Or is
this in itself a troll? It's *so* difficult to tell a
genuine troll...

I don't think it's necessarily that difficult. Nearly
everyone is 'trolling' for some sort of feedback. The
question is, what sort of feedback are they looking for,
and what are you willing to provide. Some greater self-awareness
on this would, hopefully, moderate some behavior.
But a level of consciousness that allows one to see
oneself in mirrors made of things other than glass
is not as universal as one might hope.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Watch how fast this happens
    ... appeared in talk.origins, posted by el cid ... Tough to refute a non-assertion, ... an insult even though there wasn't any idiocy to refute. ... request for clarification, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Watch how fast this happens
    ... appeared in talk.origins, posted by el cid ... Tough to refute a non-assertion, ... I was referring to the collective response. ... "Evidence confirming an observation is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why the BF hate? Cant we all get along?
    ... yeah, out of context my response looks mean and hateful, BUT when you ... did not insult that person. ... Being ignorant or something means you simply are unaware of it. ... said boring because I hear him say what he said ALL the time, ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)
  • Re: Why the BF hate? Cant we all get along?
    ... yeah, out of context my response looks mean and hateful, BUT when you ... did not insult that person. ... Being ignorant or something means you simply are unaware of it. ... said boring because I hear him say what he said ALL the time, ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)
  • Re: Book review: The Twilight of Atheism (Alister McGrath)
    ... >> <Clip a lot of stuff complaining that the references I cited do not prove ... >> the point you were, I assume, objecting to. ... >> objecting to the statement you are responding to since your response was ... >> simply an insult to the original author and hade no substantive content.> ...
    (rec.arts.books)
Loading