Josh writes: There’s been a bit of closet trolling recently, a pretence if being polite but blatantly not, and generally trying to derail posts. Fortunately we have a helpful cartoon for that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
what I said
“And what does it mean to be on topic. Here we might make our case by bring in other examples.. say poster X on old thread Y. Of course then the topics of that post get brought up again.
As people make comments the topic evolves. It grows, it morphs.
######################
so I predict that people will bring into the current thread, what was said elsewhere.
and that the topic evolves
NOW… watch what richard did
“Thanks for confirming my point. And I notice that you have used the same ploy on another thread today in your post here where you convert a reasonable post into a troll comment by addiing”
Then he says that topics dont evolve.
Richard.. look in the mirror. I predicted someone would act in a certain way.
and you made it come true.
Thanks!
richardscourtney: “Joe Born provided unsubstantiated assertion”
Which assertion do you question?
Trolling, clickbait, mainstream headline journalism — labels which today, describe the same thing: eliciting emotional responses by expressing seemingly reasoned positions either counter to or in support of local consensus.
At best, defining trolling is a nebulous task. A trolling comment here is not a trolling comment everywhere. A disrespectful, dehumanizing and despicable comment denounced on one site is lauded in another. The only constant in the definition of trolling seems to be location of where a comment is submitted.
I submit that people (including scientists) love trolls. How many times do we see 100% of thread participants take the “high road” by completely ignoring obvious trolling? And how much less the obscured?
Responding to trolls allows people these three things: 1) identify with one group over another 2) take a superior position by implying the other (troll) position is inferior 3) provide an opportunity to release tension through lampooning.
A number of organizations and individuals, eg businesses, governments, political and ad campaigns, advocacy groups (like Moveon.org), etc., hire internet trolls:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/24/samsung_fined_340000_for_hiring_trolls_to_trashtalk_htc_handsets/
Joe Born:
Your post at August 18, 2014 at 12:10 pm says in total
You are assuming I “question”. Well, you claimed to be a lawyer so I suppose such a rhetorical trick was to be expected.
I doubt every assertion you made because they are all completely unsubstantiated. Surely, a lawyer worth his salt would know that defamatory assertions provided without evidence should not be accepted.
Richar
This is worth putting into perspective. Thanks to the great majority of contributors here – WUWT is a high quality site. With contributors from all over the world. Discussing a controversial, internationally politicized topic. Questioning the official 97% consensus. And, after 8 years, still practically without moderation. IMO that’s an astonishing achievement. We can afford cutting some slack to the few tortured creatures who seem to deprive themselves of so many good things in life.
hahaha! … Lordified Monkton! … were you trolling perchance?
Well done Sir!
Brute: “I enjoyed the narrative, thanks.”
I’m glad you did.
Again, my intention was not to attribute any unworthy motives to our host, who provides an invaluable service. But some of the commenters seemed to harbor a misconception that I confess to having shared before the experience I described above, and that peek behind the curtain may may help some interpret what they see here.
He’s a pedantroll – you can never satisfy his pedantry. Nobody ever has.
– – – – – – – – – –
Village Idiot,
Christopher Monckton did once define, at request, his concept of troll in his comments on one of his WUWT articles ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/the-empire-of-the-viscount-strikes-back/ )
I went on in that thread to argue that Monckton had misapplied his own definition of troll in calling several people on that thread trolls.
I think that definition of troll is problematic in that almost anyone on any thread can call another person a troll by divining intention.
John
dp: “you can never satisfy his pedantry. Nobody ever has.”
I was pretty confident of that. But I went ahead and gave him the chance to show he had a legitimate issue. He lived down to my expectation.
People that call other people trolls are probably trolls
@richardscourtney
Please don’t avoid the question. You claimed that some trolls are remunerated professionals. I am interested in the evidence that supports your claim.
@Joe Kirklin Born
I understand. In fact, my enjoyment of your narrative has nothing to do with the degree to which it might be scientifically sound.
Joe Born:
re your post at August 18, 2014 at 1:03 pm.
Your post at August 18, 2014 at 11:42 am was merely an unsubstantiated smear against the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. It is here. And when I pressed you to substantiate the smears you tried to deflect the issue.
That is not merely a “legitimate case” and it is not “pedantry”. It it is certainty that you are a troll. And I could never lower myself to the levels of you and the other troll who posts as dp.
Richard
Fun film
watchmovie-online.com/movie/the-troll-hunter
The Troll Hunter reminds me of a frequent poster.
Brute:
Your silly post at August 18, 2014 at 1:07 pm says in total
I avoided nothing. It is common knowledge that professional trolls exist as sturgishooper says at
August 18, 2014 at 12:26 pm
His link is to a legal case where Samsung were fined for using professional trolls.
I asked you to clarify what you were asking for because your response to the trolling of Joe Born was to call it a “narrative”. Clearly, you interpret words as you see fit. And you have repeated that falsehood in your post I am answering.
I have answered Joe Born in a post at August 18, 2014 at 1:13 pm which is in moderation.
It seems that he, you and dp are trolling as a team.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm
The tag team trollers might well all be the same troll.
Besides openly advertising for trolls on Facebook, Moveon.org has mounted a petition to keep FB from trying to stop trolling behavior.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-facebook-to-stop
Trolls of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your minimum wage “jobs”!
Steven Mosher:
Your post at August 18, 2014 at 12:06 pm is daft.
I provided evidence of a behaviour by citing it and linking to it.
You think that proves something?
The only thing it proves is that – unlike you – I substantiate what I say.
Richard
Matt L. says:
August 18, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Trolling, clickbait, mainstream headline journalism — labels which today, describe the same thing: eliciting emotional responses by expressing seemingly reasoned positions either counter to or in support of local consensus.
__
With respect that’s a strange, self-serving and short-sighted definition there, as it gives people a get out of jail free card to call anyone a troll who’s disagreed with by the majority.
How is that different to consensus-building via intolerance for other views, which then leads to group-think and bullying –> ostracism?
If a person adeptly argues a reasonable and evidence-based view that goes completely counter to the commonly held local consensus then that’s a person I want to hear from. I can’t learn anything from social sycophants that fear the local social ‘elite’.
Frankly the troll word has always seemed like a cop-out/pussy word to me, a silly grab-bag word used by reactive people who like to jump to conclusions about people to dismiss them or to avoid counterpoint.
But there’s a far better term, which goes to the heat of it, and to which everyone innately understands its proper usage. It’s a sh_t stirrer!
We always know when someone’s doing that.
=================================================================
You are right of course.
After all, the toothbrush was invented by a troll.
If anyone else invented it, it would be called a “teethbrush”.
Steven Mosher:
At August 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm you have the gall to say to me
Say what!? You really are a piece of work!
You have yet to retract and apologise for this unprovoked and untrue attack of me.
You characterise yourself by your behaviour, and I have never responded to your attack in kind because what you are is so obvious that I don’t need to.
Richard
Bill 2 says:
August 18, 2014 at 1:04 pm
People that call other people trolls are probably trolls
#############
by Richard’s definition yes,
here is his defintion
“A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.”
Let Suppose the topic is climate models.
lets suppose Richard suggests another poster is a troll for discussing fruit cups
It doesnt matter whether the person is a troll or not.
richard has avoided the topic, climate models, to discuss other matters: “x is a troll”
The subject line is “Monday Mirthiness – Spot the Troll”. So we are. Anything to be “mirthy”. The very title suggest we be mirthful, don’t you think? Have some fun – it’s only one day per week.
“You have yet to retract and apologise for this unprovoked and untrue attack of me.”
every word of it is true.
but troll, you are changing the topic.