What is amazing to me is that the people who are called "trolls" are only those in some way contrary to the status quo. Others in favor of the status quo who do nothing but use invective and display 10 year old conduct are never mentioned. The worst they get is a little slap from Ted saying "Don't do that in my name", for which he deserves some respect. The truth, however, is that they are the only real trolls on this list. They are used by the powers that be to attack without any point dissidents. This is really an open source Gulag Apache.
On 5/1/06, Paul Speed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote: > Paul Speed wrote: >> >> Of course, there is a difference between polite discourse and >> trolling. I think we all know who the real trolls are and I think the >> term has been leveled a little heavy-handed lately. I think the >> bottom line is that if someone doesn't use the product, doesn't like >> the product, doesn't like any of the people who work on the product, >> frequently finds themselves always disagreeing with everyone else on >> the list then maybe it is time for them to find another place to argue. > > Well, I think the above begs the question. In terms of certain comments > I have made, and questions I have posed, look, we all know that *only* > an outsider to this project would ever say those things. This is > particularly true in situations where the insiders are largely chosen on > the basis of them being people who won't rock the boat. > > So, I mean to say, that if an insider won't say certain things (because > they just won't) and an outsider is not supposed to say certain things > (because it's somehow improper) you're basically saying that *nobody* > should say certain things. > > IOW, nobody should make certain pointed comments or ask certain hard > questions. > > BUT... if the questions and comments are legitimate, it seems that they > should not be off-limits, they should be asked. By somebody.... > > Now, OTOH, if your position is that certain comments or questions are > illegitimate, you should be able to explain why. But that should be > independent of who is making the comment or asking the question... > My position is that there is a difference between discussing a topic and being blatently insulting. Certain people tend to use a sort of style that implies that to disagree with them automatically means that you are stupid... and follow it up with some sort of twisted proof by induction that you are stupid because you don't agree with them. For example, I could have answered that way (politely) or the following way which is how one frequent poster who keeps threatening to leave tends to approach a discussion. Example of bad manners version of response, do not adopt this style: ;) "Obviously I didn't mean what you say. Anyone with a half a brain can see that there is a difference between polite discourse and trolling." Note: no real argument content added. Blatently "superior" attitude. Implied assumption that simply stating that a different point of view is stupid means that it requires no additional discussion. Read useless responses like that about 50 times and it really starts to grate. -Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
