Are all C++'ers like this?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Paul, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from Stroustrup and
    intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it all
    therefor they are right, as an argument.

    They show nothing more than fear , they are cowards and lack intelligence
    and wit.
    This forum has turned into the most homosexual group of losers I ever seen
    in my life.


    Plonk.
    Paul, Feb 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Il giorno mer, 02/02/2011 alle 10.52 +0000, Paul ha scritto:
    > They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from Stroustrup and
    > intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it all
    > therefor they are right, as an argument.
    >
    > They show nothing more than fear , they are cowards and lack intelligence
    > and wit.
    > This forum has turned into the most homosexual group of losers I ever seen
    > in my life.
    >
    >
    > Plonk.
    >
    >


    Even if you are angry, raising the tones won't help you making friends
    (two wrongs don't make one right). Moreover, posting links to other
    people websites is:
    a) arrogant, because it gives for granted any other interested reader
    can not use Google if (s)he wants, and
    b) crossing the line that keeps *your* privacy safe, by a common social
    contract. How would you feel if some of us were to post a link to, say,
    your facebook profile here?

    This forum is about C++, and if someone else insults you without reason,
    the best you can do is to point it politely out *while staying on topic*
    or just drop it. Don't feed the trolls.

    I sincerely hope I ain't feeding one. Prove me right, please. Stop the
    hatemail. We don't need any more spam that the one scamjob companies are
    providing.

    First and last e-mail from me on the subject.

    Thanks,
    Matteo

    PS. some of the writers *might be* homosexual, by the way, so using that
    as an insult makes you an homophobic, and that is not a compliment I am
    making. Please respect the 99% percent of people here that did not
    insult you in any way. Given and not granted that the remaining 1% did.
    Statistically, about one in ten/eleven of them is not heterosexual, and
    that means almost everyone has at least an homosexual friend (even
    though maybe not knowing it). I don't want to discuss this any more,
    because it is off-topic.
    Matteo Settenvini, Feb 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul <> wrote:
    > They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from Stroustrup and
    > intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it all
    > therefor they are right, as an argument.
    >
    > They show nothing more than fear , they are cowards and lack intelligence
    > and wit.
    > This forum has turned into the most homosexual group of losers I ever seen
    > in my life.


    At least you are here to enterain us by providing some good laughs.

    > Plonk.


    I *wish* that was true. I'm assuming you are just lying, as always.
    Juha Nieminen, Feb 2, 2011
    #3
  4. Paul

    Noah Roberts Guest

    In article <tHa2p.52473$2>,
    says...
    >
    > They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from Stroustrup and
    > intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it all
    > therefor they are right, as an argument.


    You do realize that neither amounts to anything more than an appeal to
    authority, right?

    Just because Stroustrup, Sutter, Alexandrescu, Myers, etc... say
    something doesn't make it true. It's true if it's true, and generally
    these people have it mostly figured out but even the "gods" make
    mistakes.

    I'm somewhat lead to question whether you're actually representing your
    opponents correctly. Did they really provide no reasoning? If so,
    shame on them. If they did provide their own reasons, and all you did
    was quote authority... shame on you.

    --
    http://crazycpp.wordpress.com/
    Noah Roberts, Feb 2, 2011
    #4
  5. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Noah Roberts" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <tHa2p.52473$2>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from Stroustrup
    >> and
    >> intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it all
    >> therefor they are right, as an argument.

    >
    > You do realize that neither amounts to anything more than an appeal to
    > authority, right?
    >
    > Just because Stroustrup, Sutter, Alexandrescu, Myers, etc... say
    > something doesn't make it true. It's true if it's true, and generally
    > these people have it mostly figured out but even the "gods" make
    > mistakes.
    >
    > I'm somewhat lead to question whether you're actually representing your
    > opponents correctly. Did they really provide no reasoning? If so,
    > shame on them. If they did provide their own reasons, and all you did
    > was quote authority... shame on you.
    >


    Leigh's argument ended up being that a member function did not exist at
    runtime.
    How else can I prove this is complete nonsense except to quote from
    respected authorities on the subject? It's not appealing to anything.
    He didn't give any reason at all for this particular argument of his. He
    just thinks he should be right because he is, and when I produce proof he
    just resorts to calling me a troll and running away from the argument. It is
    him that is doing the trolling as he is creating an argument with no
    reasonable intelligence behind it.

    The behavour of these people used to amuse me but now they simply disgust me
    with their arrogance and lack of intelligence.
    Paul, Feb 2, 2011
    #5
  6. Paul

    Default User Guest

    "Noah Roberts" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <tHa2p.52473$2>,
    > says...



    > You do realize that


    I can't believe any one is still reading, let alone responding to this
    troll.



    Brian
    --
    Day 727 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
    Current music playing: None.
    Default User, Feb 2, 2011
    #6
  7. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Pete Becker" <> wrote in message
    news:2011020214500135795-pete@versatilecodingcom...
    > On 2011-02-02 14:48:11 -0500, Paul said:
    >
    >>
    >> The behavour of these people used to amuse me but now they simply disgust
    >> me with their arrogance and lack of intelligence.

    >
    > The solution to your problem is simple: stop reading this newsgroup.
    >


    Nah its ok I don't need any life advice, I have had to put up with idiots
    all my life.

    Perhaps you are another arsehole who is telling me to **** off in a gay way,
    or perhaps you genuinely think you are giving some kind of advice. Either
    way I don't give a dam tbh

    good luck or go die , whatever is appropriate.
    Paul, Feb 2, 2011
    #7
  8. Paul

    Goran Guest

    On Feb 2, 11:52 am, "Paul" <> wrote:
    >  This forum has turned into the most homosexual group of losers I ever seen
    > in my life.


    That seem to be in a derisive tone. Is there something wrong with
    homosexual groups, or... what memo I didn't get?

    Goran.
    Goran, Feb 3, 2011
    #8
  9. Am 02.02.2011 20:48, schrieb Paul:
    >
    > "Noah Roberts" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <tHa2p.52473$2>,
    >> says...
    >>>
    >>> They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from
    >>> Stroustrup and
    >>> intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it all
    >>> therefor they are right, as an argument.

    >>
    >> You do realize that neither amounts to anything more than an appeal to
    >> authority, right?
    >>
    >> Just because Stroustrup, Sutter, Alexandrescu, Myers, etc... say
    >> something doesn't make it true. It's true if it's true, and generally
    >> these people have it mostly figured out but even the "gods" make
    >> mistakes.
    >>
    >> I'm somewhat lead to question whether you're actually representing your
    >> opponents correctly. Did they really provide no reasoning? If so,
    >> shame on them. If they did provide their own reasons, and all you did
    >> was quote authority... shame on you.
    >>

    >
    > Leigh's argument ended up being that a member function did not exist at
    > runtime.
    > How else can I prove this is complete nonsense except to quote from
    > respected authorities on the subject? It's not appealing to anything.
    > He didn't give any reason at all for this particular argument of his. He
    > just thinks he should be right because he is, and when I produce proof
    > he just resorts to calling me a troll and running away from the
    > argument. It is him that is doing the trolling as he is creating an
    > argument with no reasonable intelligence behind it.
    >
    > The behavour of these people used to amuse me but now they simply
    > disgust me with their arrogance and lack of intelligence.
    >


    I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    what does "troll" mean in this context?
    Hubert Kleinheistermann, Feb 4, 2011
    #9
  10. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Hubert Kleinheistermann" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Am 02.02.2011 20:48, schrieb Paul:
    >>
    >> "Noah Roberts" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article <tHa2p.52473$2>,
    >>> says...
    >>>>
    >>>> They lose an argument because I provide supporting links from
    >>>> Stroustrup and
    >>>> intellegnet arguments, while they provide no more than, they know it
    >>>> all
    >>>> therefor they are right, as an argument.
    >>>
    >>> You do realize that neither amounts to anything more than an appeal to
    >>> authority, right?
    >>>
    >>> Just because Stroustrup, Sutter, Alexandrescu, Myers, etc... say
    >>> something doesn't make it true. It's true if it's true, and generally
    >>> these people have it mostly figured out but even the "gods" make
    >>> mistakes.
    >>>
    >>> I'm somewhat lead to question whether you're actually representing your
    >>> opponents correctly. Did they really provide no reasoning? If so,
    >>> shame on them. If they did provide their own reasons, and all you did
    >>> was quote authority... shame on you.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Leigh's argument ended up being that a member function did not exist at
    >> runtime.
    >> How else can I prove this is complete nonsense except to quote from
    >> respected authorities on the subject? It's not appealing to anything.
    >> He didn't give any reason at all for this particular argument of his. He
    >> just thinks he should be right because he is, and when I produce proof
    >> he just resorts to calling me a troll and running away from the
    >> argument. It is him that is doing the trolling as he is creating an
    >> argument with no reasonable intelligence behind it.
    >>
    >> The behavour of these people used to amuse me but now they simply
    >> disgust me with their arrogance and lack of intelligence.
    >>

    >
    > I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    > what does "troll" mean in this context?
    >


    I don't know , these people seem to use it as some derogatory insult to mean
    you are worthless.
    Paul, Feb 4, 2011
    #10
  11. Paul

    MiB Guest

    On Feb 4, 3:47 pm, Hubert Kleinheistermann <> wrote:
    [..]
    > I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    > what does "troll" mean in this context?


    Als "Troll" wird jemand bezeichnet, der provokative, beleidigende oder
    andere manipulative Kommentare in Foren posted, mit dem alleinigen
    Zweck möglichst viele Antworten auf seinen Post zu bekommen. Der
    Ausdruck selbst ist in der Regel nicht beleidigend gemeint, er gibt
    nur dem leider sehr realen Phänomen einen Namen. Trolle sind stolz auf
    Ihre "Leistungen", zu viele oder zu harte Beleidigungen sorgen zu
    schnell dafür, dass die anderen Forenteilnehmer den Troll ignorieren.
    Des öfteren wirst du Antworten zu einem Troll-Kommentar mit dem Wort
    "plonk" sehen, damit ist das Geräusch gemeint, mit dem der Troll am
    Boden des Kill-Files des verwendeten News-Anzeigeprogramms aufschlägt,
    was andeutet, das weitere Kommentare des Trolls ausgefiltert werden.
    Ein 'guter' Troll versucht ein echtes Problem im Themengebiet des
    gewählten Forums vorzutäuschen und gibt weitere Kommentare nur ab, um
    einen Streit am Laufen zu halten, so dass noch mehr Antworten
    provoziert werden.

    For non-German speakers, the translation:
    "Troll" is a term for a person that posts provocative, insulting or
    otherwise manipulative comments to discussion groups with the sole
    purpose of generating as many as possible responses. The term by
    itself is usually not meant as an insult, it only gives a name to this
    sadly real phenomenon. Trolls take pride in their doing, if they use
    too many, or too strong insults, they quickly get ignored by other
    people. You will often see responses like "plonk" to a troll comment,
    imitating the sound that comes from dumping the offender into the news
    reader's kill file, filtering out of sight any future posts from this
    source.
    A 'good' troll pretends to be on topic to the news group and will post
    further comments only to keep up a dissent, provoking more replies.

    MiB
    MiB, Feb 4, 2011
    #11
  12. On Feb 4, 11:33am, Sherm Pendley <> wrote:
    > Hubert Kleinheistermann <> writes:
    > > I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    > > what does "troll" mean in this context?

    >
    > Despite popular misconception, it has nothing to do with
    > mythical creatures that live under bridges. :)
    >
    > It's derived from fishing. In that context, to troll is to drag one's
    > bait through the water, in hopes of attracting a fish. To troll usenet
    > is much the same, posting "bait" comments aimed at inciting an arg-
    > ument. The noun "troll" is simply someone who trolls.


    Given Sherm's short summary above you should be able to find a
    number of interesting discussions and articles about trolls and
    trolling. It really does provide fascinating insight into human
    psychology and the peculiar ease with which one can induce or
    force a behavior in another.

    For example, one can easily force a response from Leigh Johnson
    by simply suggesting one use "int", in any context, in any thread
    on this forum where the word "unsigned" appears. Moreover, one
    can force a practically indefinite stream of responses from him
    by continuing to argue the superiority of int.

    In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    not to post.

    KHD
    Keith H Duggar, Feb 4, 2011
    #12
  13. Paul wrote:

    [knip]

    > Nah its ok I don't need any life advice, I have had to put up with idiots
    > all my life.


    If everybody is driving on the other lane...

    [knip]
    Gunter Schelfhout, Feb 4, 2011
    #13
  14. On Feb 4, 3:42 pm, Leigh Johnston <> wrote:
    > On 04/02/2011 20:34, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    > > On Feb 4, 11:33am, Sherm Pendley<>  wrote:
    > >> Hubert Kleinheistermann<>  writes:
    > >>> I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    > >>> what does "troll" mean in this context?

    >
    > >> Despite popular misconception, it has nothing to do with
    > >> mythical creatures that live under bridges. :)

    >
    > >> It's derived from fishing. In that context, to troll is to drag one's
    > >> bait through the water, in hopes of attracting a fish. To troll usenet
    > >> is much the same, posting "bait" comments aimed at inciting an arg-
    > >> ument. The noun "troll" is simply someone who trolls.

    >
    > > Given Sherm's short summary above you should be able to find a
    > > number of interesting discussions and articles about trolls and
    > > trolling. It really does provide fascinating insight into human
    > > psychology and the peculiar ease with which one can induce or
    > > force a behavior in another.

    >
    > > For example, one can easily force a response from Leigh Johnson
    > > by simply suggesting one use "int", in any context, in any thread
    > > on this forum where the word "unsigned" appears. Moreover, one
    > > can force a practically indefinite stream of responses from him
    > > by continuing to argue the superiority of int.

    >
    > > In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    > > forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    > > and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    > > with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    > > not to post.

    >
    > > KHD

    >
    > Thanks to KHD for the fine example of trolling above.
    >
    > /Leigh


    Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.

    KHD
    Keith H Duggar, Feb 4, 2011
    #14
  15. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Gunter Schelfhout" <> wrote in message
    news:nDZ2p.42646$2...
    > Paul wrote:
    >
    > [knip]
    >
    >> Nah its ok I don't need any life advice, I have had to put up with idiots
    >> all my life.

    >
    > If everybody is driving on the other lane...
    >
    > [knip]


    Maybe you are in the wrong country.
    Paul, Feb 4, 2011
    #15
  16. On Feb 4, 3:59 pm, Leigh Johnston <> wrote:
    > On 04/02/2011 20:54, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 4, 3:42 pm, Leigh Johnston<>  wrote:
    > >> On 04/02/2011 20:34, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    > >>> On Feb 4, 11:33am, Sherm Pendley<>    wrote:
    > >>>> Hubert Kleinheistermann<>    writes:
    > >>>>> I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    > >>>>> what does "troll" mean in this context?

    >
    > >>>> Despite popular misconception, it has nothing to do with
    > >>>> mythical creatures that live under bridges. :)

    >
    > >>>> It's derived from fishing. In that context, to troll is to drag one's
    > >>>> bait through the water, in hopes of attracting a fish. To troll usenet
    > >>>> is much the same, posting "bait" comments aimed at inciting an arg-
    > >>>> ument. The noun "troll" is simply someone who trolls.

    >
    > >>> Given Sherm's short summary above you should be able to find a
    > >>> number of interesting discussions and articles about trolls and
    > >>> trolling. It really does provide fascinating insight into human
    > >>> psychology and the peculiar ease with which one can induce or
    > >>> force a behavior in another.

    >
    > >>> For example, one can easily force a response from Leigh Johnson
    > >>> by simply suggesting one use "int", in any context, in any thread
    > >>> on this forum where the word "unsigned" appears. Moreover, one
    > >>> can force a practically indefinite stream of responses from him
    > >>> by continuing to argue the superiority of int.

    >
    > >>> In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    > >>> forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    > >>> and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    > >>> with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    > >>> not to post.

    >
    > >>> KHD

    >
    > >> Thanks to KHD for the fine example of trolling above.

    >
    > >> /Leigh

    >
    > > Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.

    >
    > > KHD

    >
    > KHD, Kanze and Steinbach are fine examples of "occasional trolls" which
    > IMO are worse (or at least more annoying) than full-blooded trolls due
    > to their insidious nature.  Unfortunately their posts sometimes have
    > value which means killfiling them is not really an option.
    >
    > /Leigh


    Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.

    KHD
    Keith H Duggar, Feb 4, 2011
    #16
  17. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Leigh Johnston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 04/02/2011 20:54, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >> On Feb 4, 3:42 pm, Leigh Johnston<> wrote:
    >>> On 04/02/2011 20:34, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >>>> On Feb 4, 11:33am, Sherm Pendley<> wrote:
    >>>>> Hubert Kleinheistermann<> writes:
    >>>>>> I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    >>>>>> what does "troll" mean in this context?
    >>>
    >>>>> Despite popular misconception, it has nothing to do with
    >>>>> mythical creatures that live under bridges. :)
    >>>
    >>>>> It's derived from fishing. In that context, to troll is to drag one's
    >>>>> bait through the water, in hopes of attracting a fish. To troll usenet
    >>>>> is much the same, posting "bait" comments aimed at inciting an arg-
    >>>>> ument. The noun "troll" is simply someone who trolls.
    >>>
    >>>> Given Sherm's short summary above you should be able to find a
    >>>> number of interesting discussions and articles about trolls and
    >>>> trolling. It really does provide fascinating insight into human
    >>>> psychology and the peculiar ease with which one can induce or
    >>>> force a behavior in another.
    >>>
    >>>> For example, one can easily force a response from Leigh Johnson
    >>>> by simply suggesting one use "int", in any context, in any thread
    >>>> on this forum where the word "unsigned" appears. Moreover, one
    >>>> can force a practically indefinite stream of responses from him
    >>>> by continuing to argue the superiority of int.
    >>>
    >>>> In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    >>>> forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    >>>> and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    >>>> with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    >>>> not to post.
    >>>
    >>>> KHD
    >>>
    >>> Thanks to KHD for the fine example of trolling above.
    >>>
    >>> /Leigh

    >>
    >> Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.
    >>
    >> KHD

    >
    > KHD, Kanze and Steinbach are fine examples of "occasional trolls" which
    > IMO are worse (or at least more annoying) than full-blooded trolls due


    Is this expression some kind of confused mutation of red-blooded and
    full-blown ?
    Or is he referrring to the arterial system of a troll?
    Paul, Feb 4, 2011
    #17
  18. On Feb 4, 4:13 pm, Leigh Johnston <> wrote:
    > On 04/02/2011 21:08, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    > > On Feb 4, 3:59 pm, Leigh Johnston<>  wrote:
    > >> On 04/02/2011 20:54, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    > >>> On Feb 4, 3:42 pm, Leigh Johnston<>    wrote:
    > >>>> On 04/02/2011 20:34, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    > >>>>> On Feb 4, 11:33am, Sherm Pendley<>      wrote:
    > >>>>>> Hubert Kleinheistermann<>      writes:
    > >>>>>>> I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    > >>>>>>> what does "troll" mean in this context?

    >
    > >>>>>> Despite popular misconception, it has nothing to do with
    > >>>>>> mythical creatures that live under bridges. :)

    >
    > >>>>>> It's derived from fishing. In that context, to troll is to drag one's
    > >>>>>> bait through the water, in hopes of attracting a fish. To troll usenet
    > >>>>>> is much the same, posting "bait" comments aimed at inciting an arg-
    > >>>>>> ument. The noun "troll" is simply someone who trolls.

    >
    > >>>>> Given Sherm's short summary above you should be able to find a
    > >>>>> number of interesting discussions and articles about trolls and
    > >>>>> trolling. It really does provide fascinating insight into human
    > >>>>> psychology and the peculiar ease with which one can induce or
    > >>>>> force a behavior in another.

    >
    > >>>>> For example, one can easily force a response from Leigh Johnson
    > >>>>> by simply suggesting one use "int", in any context, in any thread
    > >>>>> on this forum where the word "unsigned" appears. Moreover, one
    > >>>>> can force a practically indefinite stream of responses from him
    > >>>>> by continuing to argue the superiority of int.

    >
    > >>>>> In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    > >>>>> forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    > >>>>> and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    > >>>>> with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    > >>>>> not to post.

    >
    > >>>>> KHD

    >
    > >>>> Thanks to KHD for the fine example of trolling above.

    >
    > >>>> /Leigh

    >
    > >>> Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.

    >
    > >>> KHD

    >
    > >> KHD, Kanze and Steinbach are fine examples of "occasional trolls" which
    > >> IMO are worse (or at least more annoying) than full-blooded trolls due
    > >> to their insidious nature.  Unfortunately their posts sometimes have
    > >> value which means killfiling them is not really an option.

    >
    > >> /Leigh

    >
    > > Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.

    >
    > > KHD

    >
    > Q.E.D.
    >
    > /Leigh


    Hubert, hopefully this serves as a vivid example of trolling. In
    this case I was trolling, obviously, and Leigh was my sock puppet.
    Should I so desire I could continue controlling and manipulating
    him into posting again and again; as I said he (and many others
    vulnerable to trolling and susceptible to such mind control) are
    physiologically incapable of any alternative course of action; they
    are simply doomed to respond again and again at the trolls whims.

    Of course this was a simple unsophisticated demonstration requiring
    little effort on my part (having such an easy mark) and, my purpose
    having been met, it will end soon (unless another continues pulling
    the puppet strings). However, trolling can reach a sophistication
    you would not believe. And if the troll seeks merely to provoke
    postings and garner attention in can continue for a long time.

    KHD
    Keith H Duggar, Feb 4, 2011
    #18
  19. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Leigh Johnston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 04/02/2011 21:08, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >> On Feb 4, 3:59 pm, Leigh Johnston<> wrote:
    >>> On 04/02/2011 20:54, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >>>>>> In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    >>>>>> forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    >>>>>> and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    >>>>>> with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    >>>>>> not to post.
    >>>
    >>>>>> KHD
    >>>
    >>>>> Thanks to KHD for the fine example of trolling above.
    >>>
    >>>>> /Leigh
    >>>
    >>>> Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.
    >>>
    >>>> KHD
    >>>
    >>> KHD, Kanze and Steinbach are fine examples of "occasional trolls" which
    >>> IMO are worse (or at least more annoying) than full-blooded trolls due
    >>> to their insidious nature. Unfortunately their posts sometimes have
    >>> value which means killfiling them is not really an option.
    >>>
    >>> /Leigh

    >>
    >> Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.
    >>
    >> KHD

    >
    > Q.E.D.
    >
    > /Leigh


    After being QED'd he attempts to terminate the conversation by branding his
    opponent a troll.

    I think that's another QED point to me.
    :)
    Paul, Feb 4, 2011
    #19
  20. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Leigh Johnston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 04/02/2011 21:32, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >> On Feb 4, 4:13 pm, Leigh Johnston<> wrote:
    >>> On 04/02/2011 21:08, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >>>> On Feb 4, 3:59 pm, Leigh Johnston<> wrote:
    >>>>> On 04/02/2011 20:54, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >>>>>> On Feb 4, 3:42 pm, Leigh Johnston<> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 04/02/2011 20:34, Keith H Duggar wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 11:33am, Sherm Pendley<>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Hubert Kleinheistermann<> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>> I am not a native speaker of English and I'm wondering:
    >>>>>>>>>> what does "troll" mean in this context?
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>> Despite popular misconception, it has nothing to do with
    >>>>>>>>> mythical creatures that live under bridges. :)
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>> It's derived from fishing. In that context, to troll is to drag
    >>>>>>>>> one's
    >>>>>>>>> bait through the water, in hopes of attracting a fish. To troll
    >>>>>>>>> usenet
    >>>>>>>>> is much the same, posting "bait" comments aimed at inciting an
    >>>>>>>>> arg-
    >>>>>>>>> ument. The noun "troll" is simply someone who trolls.
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> Given Sherm's short summary above you should be able to find a
    >>>>>>>> number of interesting discussions and articles about trolls and
    >>>>>>>> trolling. It really does provide fascinating insight into human
    >>>>>>>> psychology and the peculiar ease with which one can induce or
    >>>>>>>> force a behavior in another.
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> For example, one can easily force a response from Leigh Johnson
    >>>>>>>> by simply suggesting one use "int", in any context, in any thread
    >>>>>>>> on this forum where the word "unsigned" appears. Moreover, one
    >>>>>>>> can force a practically indefinite stream of responses from him
    >>>>>>>> by continuing to argue the superiority of int.
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> In other words, anyone can control Leigh Johnson at their leisure
    >>>>>>>> forcing him to post again and again as they will. For all intents
    >>>>>>>> and purposes (whether sincere as with non-trolling or insincere as
    >>>>>>>> with trolling), he is simply physiologically incapable of choosing
    >>>>>>>> not to post.
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> KHD
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Thanks to KHD for the fine example of trolling above.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> /Leigh
    >>>
    >>>>>> Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.
    >>>
    >>>>>> KHD
    >>>
    >>>>> KHD, Kanze and Steinbach are fine examples of "occasional trolls"
    >>>>> which
    >>>>> IMO are worse (or at least more annoying) than full-blooded trolls due
    >>>>> to their insidious nature. Unfortunately their posts sometimes have
    >>>>> value which means killfiling them is not really an option.
    >>>
    >>>>> /Leigh
    >>>
    >>>> Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.
    >>>
    >>>> KHD
    >>>
    >>> Q.E.D.
    >>>
    >>> /Leigh

    >>
    >> Hubert, hopefully this serves as a vivid example of trolling. In
    >> this case I was trolling, obviously, and Leigh was my sock puppet.
    >> Should I so desire I could continue controlling and manipulating
    >> him into posting again and again; as I said he (and many others
    >> vulnerable to trolling and susceptible to such mind control) are
    >> physiologically incapable of any alternative course of action; they
    >> are simply doomed to respond again and again at the trolls whims.
    >>
    >> Of course this was a simple unsophisticated demonstration requiring
    >> little effort on my part (having such an easy mark) and, my purpose
    >> having been met, it will end soon (unless another continues pulling
    >> the puppet strings). However, trolling can reach a sophistication
    >> you would not believe. And if the troll seeks merely to provoke
    >> postings and garner attention in can continue for a long time.
    >>
    >> KHD

    >
    > The transparency of KHD's meta-troll above is a troll typical of KHD (him
    > being an "occasional troll"). He does try rather hard though considering
    > the time he must spend on his responses (assuming one considers individual
    > post word count as a relevant metric) belying his claim of little effort
    > expended on his part.
    >
    > If you enjoy lowest common denominator meta-nonsense I recommend you see
    > the film "Inception".
    >
    > /Leigh


    One word:

    OWNED!
    Paul, Feb 4, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alex
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
  2. Blmn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
  3. Ittay Dror
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    428
    Ittay Dror
    Jul 29, 2004
  4. KB
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    757
    Steven D'Aprano
    Jul 31, 2005
  5. Patrick Kowalzick
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    458
    Patrick Kowalzick
    Mar 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page