So, using the word "troll" is a sign of anti-Semitism. Except when you
use it, of course.
Of course, as your etymology is bogus, I personally have no problem
calling you a troll, of the "method" type, an unusual kind who is not
playing a role but living it, is convinced of the truth of each of his
insane declarations when he says it, but is blind to any
self-contradictions, let alone lack of logic.
And if you want to describe the motivations of Harlan Sanders (a
personality created for a specific purpose as people like you could
well try to hit back via my employer or others in my real life, as you
have attempted to when Seebs annoyed you), he has chosen the biggest
asshole in the group as a "target". Which I acknowledge as a rather
pointless exercise, as you have been an asshole online for decades and
will continue to be one indefinitely.
Interesting that you recognize yourself as "the least popular poster"
yet can draw no lesson from this, other than "everyone else is an
idiot".
Strangely, this is the most likely explanation. Why?
Normally, if a crazy man thinks this in even a small community, there
are several hundred people who concur. But even in this case, the
community can be wrong. For example, Nash in Roanoke, according to his
biographer Sylvia Nash, was thought crazy by his neighbors, but not at
Princeton.
People today, especially on the Internet, are resistant to the idea
that so and so might be "really" a Misunderstood Genius, because part
of the media culture war on humanity has been the mocking of the
"genius". It's part of a media war on Bolshevism's (flawed) notion of
the "revolutionary vanguard" in which cartoons instruct people that
they cannot without looking like fools change anything.
However, here, N (the number of correspondents) is both self-selected
with common characteristics and much smaller than even a small
community (close to 10 or so). This means that any statistical
consensus such as "spinoza is crazy" is worthless, both because N is
meaninglessly small, and also because self-selection to post usually
indicates a basic narcissism, and a belief on the poster's part that
he has something worthwhile...as in the case where Dweebach posts a
patch to a poorly written system and expects applause.
This narcissism is confronted by "trolls" who usually do have
something useful and/or original to contribute because they retain
traditional markers of humanity such as Kenny's sense of the absurd.
Not all posters are like this. Others, like blm, are almost normal
people...who as a consequence of corporate life (including the
corporate-academic) have become enablers of deviance. Still others
fear consequences on the job should they defend the mark du jour and
so stand idly by, trying, like Ben or mathematicians of the Third
Reich, to keep the discussion "technical".
Well, we can agree that your classification of Seebs is as true as
your own self assessment and your stated reasons for "leaving the
field".
A quick search finds you had been arguing with him a decade earlier...
maybe someone thought having you there might raise some sparks with
him, a Jerry Springer-style confrontation.
And amusing that you cite being in an online chat with someone famous
as an endorsement of your own importance.
http://press.princeton.edu/sunstein/sun_forum.txt
This was not an online chat. I was asked to participate, based on
postings on usenet and elsewhere.
I'm not trying to establish "importance". I'm demonstrating that I
deserve, as does anyone here, the right to be recognized as a
participant in a civil conversation. Unfortunately, ever since the
Internet ceased being Arpanet, losers like you have used this medium
to bully people. I believe that because of the problem you create,
Internet access should be restricted to licensed and registered
individuals admitted by examination and a criminal background check.
At least Peter thinks he's a competent programmer, and has some sort
of programming experience. But you're here to make trouble. And
eventually, you're going to get legal trouble.
