Lakeman, mine is prettier than yours. Ask Michael to recite his "Ode to an Elephant's" A$$ for you

GG -- I went back and reread Michael's original post, and based on the definition of "troll" you provided -- "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response" --
I just really can't see how anything Michael said qualifies for this designation at all.

I have been interacting with Michael here for awhile, and have read many of his posts, and I can honestly say that it is simply not in his nature to do anything even remotely like "baiting users into an argumentative response."

I think there's a definite distinction between raising the issue of a problem and asking for input, vs. trying to be argumentative and accusatory. What I think you may define as "trolling" in the original post, I see as an expression of a degree of frustration, and a desire to try to understand the root causes of the problem.

And yes, I have a bias. I like Michael, I consider him and Bonny both as friends, and I make no attempt to hide this.

Even so, had Michael's original post been written by a complete stranger, it would not, in my opinion, constitute trolling. I have seen enough trolls (yes, even here, sadly!) to have learned how to make that distinction.

I believe Michael is within his rights to question the actions of those referred to as Thread Killers. You will note that he named no names, just cited a behavior. Left open are the identities of those who engage in the behavior, and this, combined with what I feel is a sincere effort on Michael's part to try to understand this behavior, takes it out of the "troll" realm and into the "Can someone please enlighten me on the reasons for this irritating and annoying practice?" venue.

I believe Michael -- or anyone else, for that matter -- is entitled to raise the topic without being labeled a troll.

Just one guy's opinion.

Hi Iam4u,

I'm fine, thanks. Hope your doing great. I don't think there was any war, but it is interesting seeing some of these responses.

michael

((((((((lex))))))))))))))))


bonnie!!!
i wish you lived closer then too!!!!


i need a nap!!!
teeheehee..
im exhausted!!
the baby is convinced that 4am is playtime!
uuuggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Lex, an opinion that is well justified and gives merits to the points raised in the thread. I don't need to go through the points sequentially, those who know Michael, know that inciting a riotous debate is the farthest thing from his mind. To coin one of his phrases " PEACE, STAY TUNED "

Izzie, get the kid a night job or one that starts early in the morning

Lex will you please re-read this snippet of the original post?

"I think that Thread killers have a personal problem and they need therapy, or a good spanking. I said good spanking on purpose just to see if these people can resist making a silly comment. If you wish to be a thread killer why don't you stay in threads that are not trying to do something constructive. Is it really that hard for you to resist being destructive instead of productive?"

I'm sorry but this IS trolling behavior. This was directed at other members of this board, so what if he didn't name names? This was directed at PEOPLE, not BEHAVIOR.

teeheehee...

to young.. child labour laws and all..
hehe

Izzie, get him some stilts, no one will ever know that he's a baby

Thanks Lex,

Yes this is more of a point of interest for me. As you know I like to keep up on trends, or things that have to do with behaviors. In my business one has to always be in learning mode. The line between learning and fun is sometimes the same, but it can also turn on a dime.

peace,

michael

GG -- You don't see the "good spanking" thing as a sort of ironic commentary on the behavior itself? That's the first thing I thought of when I read that. Invoking the very sort of thing that triggers the behavior as a way of making a point. Too subtle, maybe?

Based on your definition, anyone who posted something like "I don't like the 'would you ________ the person above you?' threads and people shouldn't post them" would be a troll. I don't buy it. Your definition is far too broad and all-encompassing.

Note that Michael prefaces his comments (your snippet) with "I think that...." -- i.e., showing that he is expressing an opinion. This does not violate site rules. You can disagree with him, you can argue the other side, but you can't set yourself up as a censor for the site and then arbitrarily call people trolls simply because you don't like the fact that they choose to express an opinion.

Someone could just as easily make the point that your unwarranted attack on Michael is far more trollish than anything he said -- after all, you ARE pointing your "troll" epithet at him specifically -- but that would be silly, arbitrary, petty, and totally unjustified. You are, after all, mrerely expressing a personal opinion.

No, I'm just callin it like I see it. Let's see what happens to this thread by Monday, when more members are on, and see what THEY have to say about it. I see it as a personal attack on members of this board, whether in good humor or not. I'll be very surprised if no one posts regarding this topic.

My definition came from wiki, btw..

Your comment about the "I don't like the 'would you ________ the person above you?' threads and people shouldn't post them"
is an opinion, if I were to start a thread about that topic and state that the people who post on that thread need therapy and are "counter-productive" and are bad for posting on that kind of thread, THAT is trolling.

bonnie... ill give that a try....
maybe that will work..
hehe





*pouts cuz lex is ignoring me!!*

All I can say is that no one but GG2 is upset about any of this and is coming across as the antagonist here. The more she protests, the more protagonistic she makes Micheal come across.......some people just can't seem to bow out gracefully.

Right on LEX, very well said.

So if someone says "I don't like a certain kind of thread," that's an opinion and is OK -- but if someone says "I think people who engage in ________ behavior should seek therapy and are counter-productive," that's NOT an opinion?

Isn't one's own definition of what warrants therapy, or what constitutes "productive" or "counterproductive," an opinion, in and of itself? It's an individual interpretation that will necessarily vary from one person to the next, thereby inherently taking it out of the realm of "fact" -- so, therefore, what else can it be BUT opinion?

If Michael's opinion is that certain people need therapy and are counterproductive, he has the right to hold and express that opinion. He has not named names, he has not attacked anyone personally, unlike yourself. If you disagree, fine, but you would be better served to support your own contrary position rather than attacking him personally by calling him a troll. As it stands, you're the one who has committed the more egregious violation of the rules here. The ONLY violation of the rules here, in fact.

Hi Lex,

Very well stated. I'm finding this thread more interesting as time goes on.

GG2,

I don't know you, but hope you are doing well.

michael

GG2, I amongst hundreds of thousands of University students would not and do not trust the information gleaned from Wikipedia, here's the reason why............

"University of Warwick( England) compares searches on Google with databases searching in information literacy courses. Sites with misleading information are highlighted. Students are discouraged to use Wikipedia because of misinformation on Wikipedia."



This from Oxford, Cambridge, Sheffield, Roadene school for Girls, Eaton and countless other Universities in the United Kingdom............


"As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia.


While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it, the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia — while convenient — may not be trustworthy.

“As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation,” said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. “Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation,”

For a simple opinion thread there seems to be some blood being drawn here....was I mistaken when I thought that this was a site full of open minded, fun, loving people? I don't know about anyone else but I come here to relax and laugh w/ good people that I have met here. I will admit that often we get of topic...but the whole idea is to enjoy ourselves and when the topic gets a bit of track it can be easily put back there w/ a simple request (just from my observations anyway). All of the sudden this thread seems to be more about pointing fingers than voicing a respectable opinion.......is that what it was started for or did it get hijacked?

*still pouting cuz im being ignored!!




LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!!
hehehehe

Thanks mg1959, and thanks for allowing a debate.