I don't know if "explicitly" is the correct word here. However, I can see your point now that you have clarified. Thank you. I guess the concept of someone openly and
explicitly admitting to deliberately trolling these boards went over my head. I won't make that mistake again. Carry on, self-admitted troll...
Puzzles me that anyone here would pretend otherwise, frankly. I guess they fear that admitting to trolling will somehow lessen their effectiveness at such? The real mind-fuck of it is that it doesn't. You can actually tell people exactly what you're doing, as you do it, and they'll still take the bait. But I guess people get invested in the whole superior self-image that they're working to prop up, with the trolling.
That's your opinion - one that I don't necessarily disagree with, but... Are you implying that "trolling" is a good thing?
I'd suggest that "good" and "bad" are kind of irrelevant to trolling. Or, at least, that there are both good and bad trolls. The relevant question is how good at trolling someone is, measured by how much lulz they produce, and for whom.
Such that you would advocate all members utilize trolling to convey a point?
Like I've already said: trolling is the dominant mode of interaction here. I don't see where many "points," to speak of, get "conveyed" in other modes, really.
Is this why you, the self proclaimed troll, behave in the manner that you do?
I recognize and embrace the attraction of this site for what it is: a giant troll's nest, cultivated and maintained for exactly such purposes. It affords manifold opportunities to trolls at all levels of interest, sophistication and style. It does almost nothing else well.
There you go with the superlatives again. I don't believe that "trolling" is the entire raison d'etre of these fora.
Your prerogative, of course. I don't see where it excels at anything else. Or even really functions at all. People who want to do other things, tend to go other places.
I'm not saying that every single interaction here is trolling, or that even the biggest trolls here troll 100% of the time. I just don't see where this place serves any other end, particularly.
Actually, I gave considerable, or at least adequate, consideration to replying to your ill-considered post. It's not that difficult actually.
Adequate consideration would have precluded your comically inaccurate characterization of BillyT (and my own interactions with him).
As to your instantiation being "something academically rigorous and honorable", that's a hoot. And yes, I know you didn't say that, explicitly.
I'm pretty sure that I said exactly the opposite of that, explicitly.
On the other hand, I do believe that BillyT has, in fact, provided posts showing rigorous and honorable research. That's my opinion. I am sorry you don't agree, but that's hardly my responsibility. Nor do I give a f*ck.
The problem isn't so much the 'research,' but where he goes from there. He ends up misrepresenting the research, making upside-down inferences, going off on unsupported tangents, generally addressing strawmen and trying to rewrite the argument as he goes, etc. All the usual stuff. It's standard trolling.
Also, when somebody doesn't give a fuck what I think of their opinion, they characteristically do not make a point of bringing it to my attention, repeatedly.
And you, sir, are living proof of this.
LOL nice burn.
I'm aware of many things, the set of which now includes your opinion of the "Urban Dictionary". I feel greatly enriched. Now, could you please provide your definition of "Lutz" so that I may give adequate and accurate consideration when replying to your assertion? Like I asked you for in the first place? Especially since you refuse to accept the definition provided in the link I gave? Pretty please?
There's a reason I've chosen to be somewhat oblique about that issue, and I see no reason to change course now. The only way to really "get it," is to work through exactly these challenges. I'd suggest doing it on your own - making it a bone of contention in an argument is probably among the harder ways to grasp it (even as it provides exactly an object lesson on the definition).
It amazes me how frequently you hold up your opinions as fact
Stating my opinions directly, and without bothering with any disclaimers like "IMHO," is not the same thing as asserting them as fact. You are free to write my opinions off, or challenge them, or whatever. To the extent that I don't like the reaction I get, I'll add further argumentation in their support, or not. So, where's the problem? Seems that the complaint is really about my refusal to relate to you on the basis that I need to seek your approval of my opinions. Which is exactly a classic troll premise: it creates a power imbalance wherein I have to run around defending myself, and you get to sit there disapproving as you see fit. I gave up on interacting in that way here a long time ago - plenty of trolls here that will recognize and exploit such a victim posture.
Also, I'd always been taught that it was redundant - and so, bad style - to point out that you are stating an opinion, in contexts where such should be obvious.
and throw around words which you either do not know, or refuse to provide, the definitions of. Let's start with "troll". What do you believe that "troll" means? Can you define that in one sentence? Do you even have a working definition? If not, then what are you blathering on about?
I'm pretty sure I've more-or-less advanced a simple definition of "troll" in this very thread, in my interactions with both you and Dwyddyr. To recap, it's somebody who engages in a divisive mode aimed to frustrate and humiliate "outsiders" for the amusement of "insiders."
I can think of several reasons.
By all means, list them.
I suspect you'll find that the salient ones end up getting back to the issue of trolling, if you stare at them long enough.
Systematic? Did you mean "systemic"?
Hmm, probably. Although on second thought, either will do.
Psuedonym? Did you mean pseudonym?
Now that's just petty - but instructive. Why sieze on something like a typo to assert your intellectual superiority, in the middle of insisting that you're above trolling?
Implicated? Implicated in what?
The system(at)ic trolling, of course. See above.
