Why am I not banned?

[Randwolf]

I give up your a better sciforumer than me, Dwy.
Congrats.

You're a gentleman and a scholar for admitting that. Hats off...

Your trying to look at the bigger picture through cracks.

Does this imply that you don't think it's a good idea to look at "the bigger picture"? Don't you try to see things as they are from a macro view? Or do you only see trees and no forest? :shrug:

 

[quadraphonics]

I disagree. Trolling is the attempt to provoke a response from somebody, hopefully making a fool out of them.

So what you mean to say is "I agree," then. Seeing as he characterized his behavior in almost exactly those terms, in the very post I was responding to there.

It is hardly ever entirely relevent to the topic as a whole. Dyw's are usually relatively relevant.

Red herring. Trolling can be relevant, or not - it's a meta-activity, centered on social power relations between the troll and trolled. And while I could agree that said meta-commentary is inherently off-topic, that is not to say that the substrate it operates on isn't exactly topical. Typically that is the case with any sort of sophisticated troll.

 

[Randwolf]

And while I could agree that said meta-commentary is inherently off-topic, that is not to say that the substrate it operates on isn't exactly topical.

This seems contradictory to me. Could you please rephrase or elaborate?

 

[quadraphonics]

Asking pertinent questions is trolling?

Not as such, no. But that wasn't the issue.

That sort of strawman tactic you're using right there, is another classic troll tactic.

How does that work?

The way I just described it to you: you start with the segregation of the audience into idiot(s) and insiders (with you on the right side) and then bait and humiliate the "idiots" for the amusement of yourself, and any other insiders. It's pretty straightfoward stuff. Most people have seen this sort of bully behavior plenty of times on the playground by the time they reach age 10.

Because asking obvious and pertinent questions, ones that somehow managed to escape the original poster, is, in and of itself, divisive.

Again, not quite the issue. There's a way to do what you describe there, without trolling, sure. But going around attacking "idiots" on the (winked-at) justification that this will "shock them out of their idiocy" is, yes, inherently divisive, on its face.

And that is exactly what you try to do, no matter how much you want to backtrack and recharacterize now. Again, it really doesn't matter what you will or won't admit to - it's plain enough for everyone to see. If there's any mitigating factor here, it's that you just aren't very good at trolling to begin with. And this is likely because you need to pretend that you're doing something more noble, at least to yourself.

 

[420Joey]

Then your observation in incorrect.

Not in the slightest.

Hypothetical situation? And the point of that would be...?

To illustrate the absurdity of what you are postulating.

Please quote one of these "typical posts" and show how it causes "regress".

So you contribute in said sub genres than correct? That is your position? You stated that you like to make fun of people in those genres. (Those who have no emperical proof for there claims)

Hmm, where in the phrase "You have the awnser to the worlds axioms? " does it mention "origins"? Please outline these "axioms"

What created matter and similar axioms.

Where have I claimed it's "on me"?

You put it upon your self. You dont have to claim it verbally its self evident in the your posts.

You're still missing the point. I have an interest in those subjects and spouting untenable crap does NOT progress the topic.

What possible interest could you have with religion if you demand proof to make it "tenable".

Nope, you just made an accusation based on your assumptions.

As have you.

Utter bullshit.

What you say is utter cow shit. You deny the fact that you passive agressively insult people? Ha.

Ah, you're blind too.

Don't try to flatter me now.

Moving toward a tenable answer.

Which is lets insult everybody in the pseudo, para, religion and subgenres that try to establish communication about subjects that dont have emperical evidence. Maybe some people dont want to accept I dont know and are attempting to establish a narrative to there reality. Who are you to say that we cant speculate inferred by knowledge and the data available to us because we dont know the whole picture, thus the suppositions...

And why do think that alternatives should be offered to show that a proposed "hypothesis" is wrong in subjects other than science?

Argument. Share your perspective. If you have nothing to contrast. "I dont know, you shouldent claim to know either" is regress.

Of course it's baseless. That's why I post there.

You seem smart why dont you just stick to the scientific threads ?

Incorrect assumption on your part.

Nope

You have been told before that you're making assumptions. You have been told why I post. Yet you persisted in the accusations.

Why is that?

If I ever consider your post to be reportable I won't hesitate.

& I wouldent give a flying donkey fuck.

 

[quadraphonics]

This seems contradictory to me. Could you please rephrase or elaborate?

I think an example would be better. Go take a look at pretty much any thread in the Business & Economics forum, wherein I go around working to humiliate and undermine BillyT exactly by engaging in strictly topical discussions. And he, for his part, works tirelessly to troll (his projections of) Americans using similar means.

Trolling isn't about (off-)topicality. It's about lulz.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not as such, no. But that wasn't the issue.
That sort of strawman tactic you're using right there, is another classic troll tactic.

Then you'll have to link to an actual example of "trolling" by me.

The way I just described it to you: you start with the segregation of the audience into idiot(s) and insiders (with you on the right side) and then bait and humiliate the "idiots" for the amusement of yourself, and any other insiders.

Ah, someone else who fails to read my posts before replying.

And that is exactly what you try to do, no matter how much you want to backtrack and recharacterize now. Again, it really doesn't matter what you will or won't admit to - it's plain enough for everyone to see.

Then my ban will be along soon. Happy reporting.

And this is likely because you need to pretend that you're doing something more noble, at least to yourself.

Right. Hardly.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not in the slightest.

So why apologise for "missing my intentions" later in the same post?

To illustrate the absurdity of what you are postulating.

And what exactly do you think I'm postulating?

So you contribute in said sub genres than correct?

Apparently.

You stated that you like to make fun of people in those genres. (Those who have no emperical proof for there claims)

Go back and read what I actually did say.

What created matter and similar axioms.

There are no axioms on this.

You put it upon your self. You dont have to claim it verbally its self evident in the your posts.

What you claim I "put on myself" is not what I actually do.

What possible interest could you have with religion if you demand proof to make it "tenable".

How many more times: I have an interest in why people believe what they believe. Got it yet?

What you say is utter cow shit. You deny the fact that you passive agressively insult people? Ha.

Please learn to read. That is not what I claimed at all. Go back and look at earlier posts if you need clarification.

Which is lets insult everybody in the pseudo, para, religion and subgenres that try to establish communication about subjects that dont have emperical evidence. Maybe some people dont want to accept I dont know and are attempting to establish a narrative to there reality. Who are you to say that we cant speculate inferred by knowledge and the data available to us because we dont know the whole picture, thus the suppositions...

Have you tried doing more than skimming my posts in those sections?

Argument. Share your perspective. If you have nothing to contrast. "I dont know, you shouldent claim to know either" is regress.

Or is it progress in that at least it's separating the wheat from the chaff?

You seem smart why dont you just stick to the scientific threads ?

Because I have an interest in those subjects.

 

[Randwolf]

I think an example would be better. Go take a look at pretty much any thread in the Business & Economics forum, wherein I go around working to humiliate and undermine BillyT exactly by engaging in strictly topical discussions.

So, when you "go around working to humiliate and undermine" a poster, that's acceptable "nontrollish" behavior, right?

And he, for his part, works tirelessly to troll (his projections of) Americans using similar means.

IMO, BillyT seems to know what he's talking about. He will provide references and citations. Yet you seem unwilling to do either, preferring use of metaphorical hand-waving which directs a member to go find the answer in "pretty much any thread". Is this correct?

Trolling isn't about (off-)topicality. It's about lulz.

What is "lulz"? Excuse my ignorance, but the merriam-webster dictionary provides no results for this word. Could you help me out?


Edit: Disregard the question about "lulz". I found it in the Urban Dictionary:

Beginning as a plural variant of lol, Lulz was originally an exclamation but is now often used as a noun meaning interesting or funny internet content.

So trolling is about "interesting or funny internet content"?

 

[quadraphonics]

Then you'll have to link to an actual example of "trolling" by me.

"Link?" You're responding to a direct observation of such right there.

But if that's insufficient:

Ah, someone else who fails to read my posts before replying.

... there's another example.

Then my ban will be along soon. Happy reporting.

? This place doesn't ban people for trolling. Almost all of the mods are trolls themselves. You start banning people for trolling, this place is going to get empty quick.

And I never report anyone, for anything. Complaining to the mods is for cry-babies and authoritarian suck-ups.

Except once I reported a mod (Bells, was it?) on a lark, to troll the mods over their ill-considered rules and iller-considered methods of enforcing such. Didn't end up with much lulz (visible to me, anyway), so that will likely be the one and only time I report anyone.

Right. Hardly.

Not much force in that dismissal, coming as it does on the heels of a bunch of trolling and denials of such.

 

[quadraphonics]

So, when you "go around working to humiliate and undermine" a poster, that's acceptable "nontrollish" behavior, right?

What? No, that was given as an explicit example of trolling.

IMO, BillyT seems to know what he's talking about. He will provide references and citations. Yet you seem unwilling to do either, preferring use of metaphorical hand-waving which directs a member to go find the answer in "pretty much any thread". Is this correct?

Nope.

But it is a relevant instantiation of the sort of characteristics that make these forums so ripe for trolling.

What is "lulz"? Excuse my ignorance, but the merriam-webster dictionary provides no results for this word. Could you help me out?


Edit: Disregard the question about "lulz". I found it in the Urban Dictionary:
So trolling is about "interesting or funny internet content"?

Not quite. Suffice it to say that the division between those who "get" lulz, and those who do not, is salient to the phenomenon of trolling.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I'm confused. Did you mean "no, because his [the] lack of real logic and understanding at times is evident in a lot of people here"? Or something else?

Also, could you please clarify what constitutes "a lot of people"? How many? And how do you know this?

P.S. What is "real" logic? Is there some other kind?

Real logic you know ? The logic that is not Super Natural Logic . Extra natural logic is what I call it. It is based in fantasy. The logic that makes life fun and exciting . Like the spontaneous act of a free spirited woman. Were your brain is saying shit should I really do that with her , yet you can't help it because you are having more fun than you have a right to

 

[Dywyddyr]

"Link?" You're responding to a direct observation of such right there.

Direct claim of observation I think you'll find.

But if that's insufficient:
... there's another example.

Right. I'm trolling because you make a statement that is not supported by what I've said in previous posts, and I give an off-hand remark.

 

[Pinwheel]

BillyT is cool I've learned quite a lot of things from his threads. But as ever everyone has to DYODD before acting on any info.

 

[Randwolf]

What? No, that was given as an explicit example of trolling.

Ahhh... That was a specific example of you trolling. OK.

Nope. But it is a relevant instantiation of the sort of characteristics that make these forums so ripe for trolling.

What, exactly is "a relevant instantiation of the sort of characteristics that make these forums so ripe for trolling"? Any thread in Business & Economics that you participate in?

Not quite.

So the definition that I linked to is wrong? Do tell...

Suffice it to say that the division between those who "get" lulz, and those who do not, is salient to the phenomenon of trolling.

So are you saying that those of us who "get" interesting or funny internet content are trolling? Or is not getting it more salient to trolling? Im confused...
(not an unusual state of mind for me )

 

[Randwolf]

Real logic you know ? The logic that is not Super Natural Logic . Extra natural logic is what I call it. It is based in fantasy. The logic that makes life fun and exciting . Like the spontaneous act of a free spirited woman. Were your brain is saying shit should I really do that with her , yet you can't help it because you are having more fun than you have a right to

OK, I see. Thank you. I always wondered what caused "spontaneous act of a free spirited woman", for example. Now I understand.
Thanks again for the enlightenment, it is appreciated...

 

[birch]

Which is lets insult everybody in the pseudo, para, religion and subgenres that try to establish communication about subjects that dont have emperical evidence. Maybe some people dont want to accept I dont know and are attempting to establish a narrative to there reality. Who are you to say that we cant speculate inferred by knowledge and the data available to us because we dont know the whole picture, thus the suppositions...

nah. that's what it looks like on the surface but that's not the whole story. most of the naysayers or the ones who are demanding evidence are more paranoid and can't accept they don't know. this is why they either demand the evidence to prove it now or they try to rationalize it themselves usually citing it is not real or that it's an hallucination. they are trying to assure themselves of their belief or take on the world just the same.

 

[Dywyddyr]

most of the naysayers or the ones who are demanding evidence are more paranoid and can't accept they don't know

On the contrary, you'll find that in most cases the "naysayers" are actually the ones who say "We don't know, let's have more investigation" and the believers who claim they do know: "Ooh! It's a ghost!"

this is why they either demand the evidence to prove it

Rubbish again. We demand "proof" that things are as they are claimed to be by the gullible.

 

[quadraphonics]

Direct claim of observation I think you'll find.

Exactly what else can I offer? The link you requested would likewise be a "claim of observation."

All of which should go without saying - so why the attempt to use it as a dodge? That's the kind of thing that trolls do, among others.

Right. I'm trolling because you make a statement that is not supported by what I've said in previous posts, and I give an off-hand remark.

That's not what happened.

But, again, we see the resort to cheap troll tactics like stilted recharacterizations of the conversation-up-to-now, delivered in a dismissive, superior tone.

You're just digging yourself in deeper with this stuff.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Stilted re-characterisations?
You claimed something that went directly against what I had said in previous posts.
"Dismissive superior tone"?
Ah right. My writing style (which also happens to match my speaking style) is also against me.