--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> It's one thing to read the words of a > troll, it's another thing to read the words of a troll about "me." > Then it becomes personal, and the flaming of the troll is felt much > more deeply than if the troll had attacked someone else.
I concur. And as I suggested earlier, it's not just that the attack may be "felt more deeply" by the target, but that those *not* being attacked may not even perceive that an attack has taken place, even if they've read the exchange. In some cases, the attacker may have deliberately crafted the post so as to make the attack pretty much "invisible" to all but the target. It's a species of "plausible deniability," in other words. A side point: I wish we would reserve the term "troll" for use in its original sense, that is, someone who makes inflammatory posts merely to inspire a reaction from as many people as possible, and hopefully to create conflict among the members of the group. A troll's post is frequently not sincere, i.e., the troll doesn't necessarily believe what he or she says. There may be some overlap with flaming, but generally these are two distinct behaviors. There are some here who claim they personally attack others only to deliberately "push their buttons" and get a reaction; this could be seen as a form of trolling, but again, trolling in the traditional sense is done to push the group's buttons, not those of one of the perpetrator's "enemies." Plus which, the claim that the attack is made only to "push the buttons" of the target, i.e., that there's no real hostility involved, is almost always a crock. It's no different than any other personal attack.
