Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
On 4/27/06, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear trolls,
Please go. Or at least try to form your rambling in to some sort of
actionable suggestion. But don't just bitch for the sake of knowing
that people are reading, because...
Dear everyone else,
Please stop reading or replying to the trolls. Seriously. You guys
are just as bad for feeding the trolls. Ignoring them is the fastest
way to make them go away. I have not and will not entertain them with
any sort of response. I suggest you do the same.
I wouldn't have a problem with this except for one thought that crossed
my mind as I read it: one person's troll is another's crusader.
Yes, actually, this point has come up enough that it is the very first
thing mentioned in subsection on usage of the term in the wikipedia
entry on "Internet Trolls". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Trolls#Usage
"The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a
post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate
contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often
used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad
hominem...."
The term "ad hominem" is hyperlinked. Specifically, the usage part is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Usage
and that is:
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is
wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something
discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited
by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself...."
In other words, an extremely commonplace use of the term "troll" in
internet forums (the very first usage mentioned in the wikipedia article
on trolls) is as part of an ad hominem fallacy. "Don't talk to that guy,
he's a troll" when the person is saying things that challenge a given
orthodoxy or hierarchy.
This does seem to be what is happening here.
I'm
sure the King of England viewed the first Continental Congress as a
bunch of trolls before the revolution happened :)
Well, he would have had some other pejorative term(s) for them. But in
general, your point is well taken: people with strong opinions who
expound a consistent set of views in good faith are not trolls. That's
not what the term means.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
I would hope everyone around here is mature and professional enough to
withstand criticism and not reject out-of-hand those ideas that do not
immediately jive with your own.
You *always* have the choice whether to read someone's posts or not. You
*always* have the choice whether to reply or not. Filters are easy to
set up, or it only takes a fraction of a second to delete someones'
posts (or an entire thread if it doesn't interest you). There are many
times where I simply ignore some topic, or some person, when I don't
wish to be bothered. But I *never* want to be in a situation where
someone can't say what they want freely. That would be far, far worse
than any "troll" ever could be IMO.
Frank
(P.S., while I have your attention Patrick, thanks for Webwork in
Action! Excellent introduction to WW!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
