Interview Questions

[Rafael]

Keith Thompson escreveu:

I am happy to ask everyone to name the people they are referring to
when they use the term. Indeed I ask that now: please, everyone,
rather than use the term "trolls" collectively, name the posters you
are referring to. Will you do the same and, like I try to do, desist
from using these vague collectives terms?

[...]

I decline to accept your suggestion. The term "troll" is not defined
by a list of people, but by their behavior. I suppose I could list
the people who behave in that manner, but what would be the point? As
I recall, most of the people I think of as trolls freely admit that
they are trolls.

Since you are the one saying that, I think there is a standard, but I've
missed it. Can you provide-me a link? (PS.: i know wikipedia)

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson escreveu:

I am happy to ask everyone to name the people they are referring to
when they use the term. Indeed I ask that now: please, everyone,
rather than use the term "trolls" collectively, name the posters you
are referring to. Will you do the same and, like I try to do, desist
from using these vague collectives terms?

[...]

I decline to accept your suggestion. The term "troll" is not defined
by a list of people, but by their behavior. I suppose I could list
the people who behave in that manner, but what would be the point? As
I recall, most of the people I think of as trolls freely admit that
they are trolls.

Since you are the one saying that, I think there is a standard, but
I've missed it. Can you provide-me a link? (PS.: i know wikipedia)

There's no "standard" that I know of, but the Jargon File provides a
reasonably good definition in my opinion:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html

Meaning 2 is the relevant one here.

 

[James Kuyper]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:34:40 -0800, Keith Thompson


And by that standard the so called trolls in c.l.c. aren't
trolls.

That depends upon who is doing the calling. That definition accurately
matches most of the people I've seen that label applied to here.
However, I agree that many people have been called trolls who aren't. In
particular, I've seen real trolls misuse the word by applying it to
their critics.

 

[Keith Thompson]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:34:40 -0800, Keith Thompson


And by that standard the so called trolls in c.l.c. aren't
trolls.

I think we'll just have to disagree on that point. Perhaps some of
them occasionally don't fit the "for no other purpose" clause, but
apart from that I think it fits them quite well.

 

[CBFalconer]

And by that standard the so called trolls in c.l.c. aren't
trolls.

Here is what I see in my copy of the jargon file:

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or
flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling
for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a
style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot
hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that
induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even
more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to
the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate
troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.
See also YHBT.

2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly
posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose
than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are
recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in
learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter
flame bait.

and I believe we have adequate examples on c.l.c.

 

[JosephKK]

The correct signature delimiter is "-- ", not "--- ".

I've asked you before to stop using your 30-line ASCII art signature
here.

I don't mind the riddle, though the subject header, "Interview
Questions" seems to be deliberately misleading. But the next time
I see your ASCII art signature will be the last.

Keith, this is USENET in the process of mutating into Usenet-2. With
very scant paper and printing time not involved anymore and many other
differences of then versus now (including cheap bandwidth) the
oversize sig is at worst impolite and should be used sparingly. Your
early 1970's based bias notwithstanding.

 

[JosephKK]

None. We just let the trolls write some code, which will with high
probability result in light-emitting demons flying out of their noses.

Richard

You are lucky my keyboard is rinse able.

 

[Richard Bos]

You are lucky my keyboard is rinse able.

We aim to please.

Some of us, apparently, aim to please our keyboards.

Richard

 

[JosephKK]

We aim to please.

Some of us, apparently, aim to please our keyboards.

Richard

Aim, per se is not quite the issue. It can be very difficult to
control reflex laughter. Emitting sprays when i happen to have a
mouthful at the same time the reflex occurs is still not entirely
controllable. Consequential messes may occur, with attendant cleanup.
YMMV