|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Re: George Peatty is a troll
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147575] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 11:59 |
|
"David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's
>a definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and then killfile him.
"Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147578 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 13:08 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
> "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in
>>alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's a definite
>>troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and
>>then killfile him.
>
> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
> products
> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
> messages)
> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>
> Politics
>
"Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is
to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or statements, looking to
invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be
otherwise lacking in their life.
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147579 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 13:59 |
|
"rr (newst)" <rr [at] news.com> wrote in message news:dig6fj$fa9$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
>> "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>>>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips.
>>>He's a definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and then killfile him.
>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>> Politics
> "Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or
> statements, looking to invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be otherwise lacking in their life.
Usually, it is the people who call others names or epithets like "troll", who are the true problems on the Usenet.
Always be suspicious of anyone who attacks the speaker target, ad hominem, rather than attempting
to disprove the argument the target presents.
The true purpose of the Usenet is just this very exchange of ideas and arguments.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147581 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 16:15 |
|
"rr (newst)" wrote:
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
> > "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
> >>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in
> >>alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's a definite
> >>troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and
> >>then killfile him.
> >
> > "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
> > products
> > on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
> > not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
> > This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
> > who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
> > messages)
> > on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
> >
> > Politics
> >
>
> "Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is
> to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or statements, looking to
> invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be
> otherwise lacking in their life.
In other words a "Nigel no friend"
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147584 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 17:15 |
|
"John" <sittingbythepool [at] internode.on.net> wrote in message news:434BC90E.21D8577D [at] internode.on.net...
> "rr (newst)" wrote:
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
>> > "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>> >>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in
>> >>alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's a definite
>> >>troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and
>> >>then killfile him.
>> > "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
>> > products
>> > on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>> > not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>> > This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>> > who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
>> > messages)
>> > on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>> > Politics
>> "Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is
>> to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or statements, looking to
>> invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be
>> otherwise lacking in their life.
> In other words a "Nigel no friend"
Since the name Nigel is popular in the UK but does not exist in the US (besides the song lyric Making Plans For Nigel),
I would assume this quip has more meaning in the UK than the US.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147598 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 23:15 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
| "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
| >I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in
alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's
| >a definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial
trolling and then killfile him.
|
| "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
products
| on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
| not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
| This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
| who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
messages)
| on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
|
| Politics
As usual, you find something that fits your prior prejudices and take
that as gospel without even bothering in the slightest to dig deeper.
You are lazy & stupid & insane.
As for the TROLL definition regarding the Internet dogged annoyers...
...try reading "THE THREE BILLY GOATS GRUFF". It will probably be the
first actual educational experience you've received in a decade, I suspect.
http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/billygoats/
"An Invention of the Public Relations Firms"... what galling ignorant
lazy bullshit your brain is chock full of.
Dumbass.
================
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=troll&searchm ode=none
troll (n.) Look up troll at Dictionary.com
"ugly dwarf or giant," 1616, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some
speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and
derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems
to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm,
bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull,
a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There
were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician
or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was
popularized in Eng. by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the
Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a
court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among
other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in
hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick."
Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate
as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs
and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.
troll (v.) Look up troll at Dictionary.com
1377, "to go about, stroll," later (c.1425) "roll from side to side,
trundle," from O.Fr. troller, a hunting term, "wander, to go in quest of
game without purpose," from a Gmc. source (cf. O.H.G. trollen "to walk with
short steps"), from P.Gmc. *truzlanan. Sense of "sing in a full, rolling
voice" (first attested 1575) and that of "fish with a moving line" (1606)
are both extended technical applications of the general sense of "roll,
trundle," the latter perhaps confused with trail or trawl. Fig. sense of "to
draw on as with a moving bait, entice, allure" is from 1565. Meaning "to
cruise in search of sexual encounters" is recorded from 1967, originally in
homosexual slang.
--
Postscript: In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by
President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White
House press corps at the time:
"George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about
Iraq-gate and Iran contra?"
"Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will
chase us down the streets and lynch us."
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147599 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 23:46 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11koar2sdjvb000 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
> | "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
> | >I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in
> alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's
> | >a definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial
> trolling and then killfile him.
> | "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
> products
> | on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
> | not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
> | This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
> | who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
> messages)
> | on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
> | Politics
> As usual, you find something that fits your prior prejudices and take
> that as gospel without even bothering in the slightest to dig deeper.
> You are lazy & stupid & insane.
> As for the TROLL definition regarding the Internet dogged annoyers...
> ...try reading "THE THREE BILLY GOATS GRUFF". It will probably be the
> first actual educational experience you've received in a decade, I suspect.
> http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/billygoats/
> "An Invention of the Public Relations Firms"... what galling ignorant
> lazy bullshit your brain is chock full of.
> Dumbass.
> ================
As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based on facts, logic and Nature.
And no one yet has been able to disprove anything I have presented here.
Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and sourced.
Politics
============================================================ ========
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=troll&searchm ode=none
> troll (n.) Look up troll at Dictionary.com
> "ugly dwarf or giant," 1616, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some
> speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and
> derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems
> to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm,
> bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull,
> a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There
> were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician
> or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was
> popularized in Eng. by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the
> Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a
> court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among
> other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in
> hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick."
> Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate
> as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs
> and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.
>
> troll (v.) Look up troll at Dictionary.com
> 1377, "to go about, stroll," later (c.1425) "roll from side to side,
> trundle," from O.Fr. troller, a hunting term, "wander, to go in quest of
> game without purpose," from a Gmc. source (cf. O.H.G. trollen "to walk with
> short steps"), from P.Gmc. *truzlanan. Sense of "sing in a full, rolling
> voice" (first attested 1575) and that of "fish with a moving line" (1606)
> are both extended technical applications of the general sense of "roll,
> trundle," the latter perhaps confused with trail or trawl. Fig. sense of "to
> draw on as with a moving bait, entice, allure" is from 1565. Meaning "to
> cruise in search of sexual encounters" is recorded from 1967, originally in
> homosexual slang.
>
> --
> Postscript: In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by
> President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White
> House press corps at the time:
> "George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about
> Iraq-gate and Iran contra?"
> "Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will
> chase us down the streets and lynch us."
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147602 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 01:28 |
|
"Paul F. Johnson" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129072715.632.27.camel [at] localhost...
>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
> Nope.
> Look in a dictionary and you'll find "John Shocked". It will then go on
> to list his inane gibberings, homophobic and ill-researched viewpoints
> and any other cross-posted random bullshit that no-one other than the
> far right would be in the least bit interested to hear.
> Dillwad.
"homophobe" -- a term used by aggressive homosexuals to describe anyone who disagrees with their
homosexual agenda. The word has become meaningless, due to inappropriate use and overuse.
All of the millions of US citizens who voted overwhelmingly against Homosexual Marriage, and in some cases
Homosexual Civil Unions also, in 11 out of 11 States in 2004 have all been labeled by aggressive homosexuals
with this now meaningless word.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147615 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 06:23 |
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based on facts, logic and Nature.
>And no one yet has been able to disprove anything I have presented here.
Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
flat in the face of logic.
I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over
the place.
Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my reply
settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from me,
except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the discussion
back to where it should be.
And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and sourced.
Yeah, right.
>Politics
[snipped]
Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
concept of threaded discussions?
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147617 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 12:20 |
|
From the Collected Witterings of Kevin Kitching, volume 23:
> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
Really?
--
Who the f--k are you calling insolent?
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147620 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 14:34 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snipped]
>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based on facts, logic and Nature.
>>And no one yet has been able to disprove anything I have presented here.
> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
> flat in the face of logic.
> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
> I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to dispute the evidence presented,
then respond to the message with the full list of addresses in the original message.
Of course, if the Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you from doing that,
then that is your problem.
> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over the place.
> Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my reply
> settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from me,
> except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the discussion
> back to where it should be.
> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the truth.
I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the truth.
>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and sourced.
>>Politics
> Yeah, right.
> [snipped]
> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
> concept of threaded discussions?
All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147621 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 14:45 |
|
"Daniel "Naughty Tentacles" Blakemore" <Daniel.Blakemore [at] nospam.btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:digb4q$jf8$1 [at] nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RON2f.68176$lq6.5629 [at] fed1read01...
>> "rr (newst)" <rr [at] news.com> wrote in message news:dig6fj$fa9$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
>>>> "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>>>>>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips.
>>>>>He's a definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and then killfile him.
>>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>>>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>>>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>>>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>>>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages) on the Usenet like they can do on their own
>>>> web sites and blogs.
>>>> Politics
>>> "Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or
>>> statements, looking to invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be otherwise lacking in their life.
>> Usually, it is the people who call others names or epithets like "troll", who are the true problems on the Usenet.
>> Always be suspicious of anyone who attacks the speaker target, ad hominem, rather than attempting to disprove the argument the
>> target presents.
>> The true purpose of the Usenet is just this very exchange of ideas and arguments.
> I notice you saw the need to crosspost the thread and your asinine, narcissic *opinion* to several other unrelated
> newsgroups...(!)
> To everyone else...apologies that my first post here (although I have lurked a while ;) ) had to be a reply to such a unskilled,
> braindead, lowbrow troll (and believe me, he *is* unskilled compared to some of the witty, thought-provoking or just plain
> *subtle* trolls I've observed elsewhere)...it just gets my goat when unsavoury individuals such as him quote free speech as an
> excuse to taunt others into playing their silly infantile little games. In my opinion, if you're gonna troll, put some frakkin'
> original thought and imagination into it!!!
> Daniel Blakemore
The Usenet is here for people to post messages to the public at large about issues of
public importance and to engage in debate of those issues.
There can be no limits placed on the Newsgroup range of those messages.
Politics
============================================================ ===
"Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
============================================================ ====
The available evidence clearly shows that the HIV AIDS virus originated in the homosexual community in the US and
their involvement in medical experiments to address certain forms of cancer and other ailments homosexuals were spreading
to each other in the 1970's. From that interaction between US homosexuals and the US medical research community,
the HIV AIDS virus was spread to the black population in the Congo, Africa in projects in which the
US medical community claimed to be helping out in Africa.
Then US homosexuals spread the HIV AIDS virus to the black community in the US and the medical blood supply,
by giving blood to hospitals and the Red Cross, knowing full well that their blood was diseased, hoping that by spreading
the disease to non-homosexuals, more research funds would be allocated to finding a cure to this disease.
Note that this is entirely consistent with the selfish attitude of the right wing libertarian Hollywood Homosexual community
in general, which has been discussed here.
In fact there are still legal battles with homosexuals giving blood to this day.
Any blood borne disease will spread fastest in the homosexual community for two reasons:
1) homosexuals have an incredible number of homosexual partners in a brief period of time, and
2) the homosexual act involves an unnatural act bringing a hard object with force and unnatural repetitive friction
within the anal tract, which causes cuts and blood admixes with the diseased ejaculate, spreading disease through
the anal cuts and through the soft tissue of the urethra and prepuce.
A few years after the claimed AIDS 'discovery' in Africa, another dangerous disease, Ebola, was claimed to have been
'discovered' in exactly the same country, The Congo, in Africa, where the US medical community had established
a base of operations and medical experimentation.
The fact that most people in the US believe that AIDS originated in Africa is just another one of those amazing
public relations coups which results from the overwhelming stranglehold that Hollywood Homosexuals
possess over the News Media, which they also abuse to sell Sodomy to you and your kids on TV in BSG
and other fake science fiction series.
Ultimately, it is in the interests of every American to ascertain the truth about where these 2 diseases and
other more recent diseases originated.
If the US people knew where those two diseases really originated, they would want to know why we are spending
so much money funding biological research in the US when these research operations are in fact the source of these
new diseases, carefully spreading these diseases so that the biological research industry can continue to siphon off
huge amounts of billions of dollars from the US taxpayer, claiming to search for cures.
Politics
============================================================ ==================
==========================excerpt from alt.battlestar-galactica============================
===========SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #6 -- skits opposing ST:DS9 Sodomy direction========
><pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122192809.496225.127220 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1122078686.441569.118160 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>><pbow... [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1121912695.386719.290100 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>The article clearly shows that these claims of the Sailor or the Bantu man were false alarms.
>It makes no mention of the Bantu man at all. Since I'd never heard of
>the sailor before this, I don't know how credible those claims were to
>begin with.
It does mention the Bantu man.
==================================================
http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/0903.html
The 1959 specimen was obtained from a Bantu man living in Kinshasa, the Congo. His name and health status were
not recorded. Details of the history and testing of this specimen (later heralded as the "world's oldest HIV-
positive blood sample") are recorded in The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS [1999], by
journalist Edward Hooper who theorizes that HIV was introduced into Africans via the polio vaccine programs in
the late 1950s. Hooper claims the polio vaccine was prepared using chimp kidney cells contaminated with the
ancestor virus of HIV.
When tested for HIV in the mid-1980s, the 1959 blood sample was the only specimen out of 700 stored frozen
Congo bloods that tested positive for HIV. Originally collected by Arno Motulsky on a Rockefeller grant, the
African sample was one of many sent to the University of Washington in Seattle and used for genetic testing
and included in report, "Population Genetic Studies," published in 1966.
Around 1970, the remaining 672 frozen bloods were flown to Emory University in Atlanta for further genetic
tests. In 1985 the specimens again changed hands, this time for HIV testing by Andre Nahmias, a virologist and
animal researcher associated with the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory. The Congo specimens were tested along
with 500 other blood specimens taken from blacks living in sub-Saharan Africa between the years 1959 and 1982.
Initially over 90% of specimens taken in 1959 tested positive for HIV by the ELISA test. However, these HIV-
positive tests were later determined to be false-positive. After the examinations at Emory, the specimens were
shipped to Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for HIV testing in Max Essex' lab.
==================================================
>> The writer describes how 700 other contemporary Congo
>>blood samples tested negative and that there was widespread contamination of these labs
>>at the time causing false positives.
>Firstly we don't know they were contemporary - it just said 700 samples
>were tested, and that one of them was from 1959. Secondly we have no
>reason to believe the first victim's sample was among them. Thirdly
>this study was from 1966 and the BBC article referring to the Bantu man
>was from 2004 - given that the information from this study is publicly
>available, researchers in the area would be fully aware of its findings
>and would incorporate them into their understanding of the history of
>the disease.
The article does state that the initial 700 blood samples were taken in 1959
" Initially over 90% of specimens taken in 1959 tested positive for HIV by the ELISA test."
>>Nowadays, scientists hunt for "ancestor" viruses of HIV in chimps in the African wild and
>>ignore all the immunosuppressive viruses that were created in virus laboratories shortly before AIDS.
>What's more they've found said ancestor virus, as mentioned in the BBC
>article. In chimps (well, bonobos) no less.
By 2004, the final test (1959 Bantu sample now completely used up, they claim) on the Bantu man's blood had
been performed by David Ho with the latest DNA testing PCR technology and he did not find the live virus or
even full evidence of the prior presence of the whole DNA of the virus. This taken with the contaminations known
to have occurred in the labs through which this sample passed calls this test into question.
The HIV virus is claimed by these researchers to mutate, making it difficult for them to successfully falsify the exact 1959
version of the virus. Thus it appears they contaminated it with a dead fragment of the virus, to fake it in an untraceable way.
========================================================
http://www.aidsorigins.com/glossary.shtml
GENOME Total genetic material of a cell or virus.
PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) Process involving isolation and amplification of a
specific DNA sequence which can then be studied.
VIRION Single, complete virus particle, consisting of a core of nucleic acid, within a protein envelope.
VIRUS Minute infectious agent, only able to multiply inside a living host cell.
========================================================
>>"As soon as homosexuals signed up as guinea pigs for government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine
>>experiments, they began to die with a strange virus of unknown origin."
>This is a claim. Evidence would involve identifying whether any
>particular homosexuals given the vaccine died from the "strange virus"
>afterwards, and any evidence that that virus was in fact AIDS. This
>claim could simply mean that after one or two homosexuals in Manhattan
>volunteered for the vaccine a few on the other side of the island died,
>in which case there would be no connection at all. If Cantwell had any
>evidence of specific cases he would have presented it here.
The fact that they began to die immediately, indicates that these homosexuals may already
have contracted the AIDS virus and had reduced immune systems or had their immune systems
depleted by drugs as Cantwell described.
>>"In order to induce primates and other research animals to acquire cancer, their immune system
>>was deliberately suppressed by drugs, radiation, or cancer-causing chemicals or substances.
>>The thymus gland and/or the spleen were removed, and viruses were injected into
>>newborn animals or into the womb of pregnant animals. Some animals were injected with
>>malaria to keep them chronically sick and immunodepressed."
>So...these poor infected homosexuals were kept in laboratory conditions
>for weeks or months with their immune system being periodically
>suppressed by drugs, radiation and possibly malaria? There isn't some
>'magic bullet' you can inject someone with that then leaves their
>immune system crippled for life - this sort of study can only be
>carried out with repeated exposure to the immune suppressant.
It is obvious that immunodepression is an important factor in biological viral research.
And this research was dovetailing with 'discovery' of another virus, Ebola, which suspiciously was also 'first 'discovered'
in Congo (formerly Zaire), Africa. African governments should be very suspicious about any westerner coming to their
country claiming to be a medical researcher.
==============================================
http://www.d2ol.com/ebola.html
Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) is a severe, often-fatal disease in humans and nonhuman
primates (monkeys and chimpanzees) that has appeared sporadically since its initial recognition in 1976.
The disease is caused by infection with Ebola virus, named after a river in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (formerly Zaire) in Africa, where it was first recognized.
==============================================
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0917211251/ref =cm_aya_a...
>>Interesting that of all the 4 Amazon reviews written by Amazon's customers, you picked the
>>only one which did not give the Cantwell book 5 stars out of 5 stars, but gave it 3 of 5 instead.
[>I 'picked' the one that came up when I typed "Alan Cantwell" + review
>into the search engine. Strangely enough, none of the other three
>review the book in any detail (comments along the lines of "Yeah! I
>knew it!" aren't really that persuasive) and none attempts a critique
>of what he writes. Again, the claim that he provides no evidence, made
>by the reviewer I cited, is a factual one open to investigation if you
>wish to dispute it. Given the citations you've provided to date, it so
>far seems a wholly accurate analysis.] -- JS did not write this
[>Cantwell seems to be describing disposal of the primates that he learnt from documentation
> and it seems there was not a standing policy to destroy any primate after 'inoculation' testing,
>which might even be illegal.] -- JS wrote this.
I am tiring of your posting text you wrote as mine with indenting indicating I wrote it
and vice versa.
What is clear is the US biological researchers were in Africa during the mid-1970's, so
there is no necessity that the primates they imported from Congo had to be returned
to Congo for US researchers to have started these diseases in Africa.
The two claims of 'discovery' of both Ebola and AIDS in Congo, Africa
is extremely suspicious.
============================================================ ======
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147632 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 18:31 |
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:20:52 +0100, "David Chapman"
<jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>From the Collected Witterings of Kevin Kitching, volume 23:
>
>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>
>Really?
Apparently not..:) Sorry - didn'r mean to put it in a.st.. As to why
Troll boy is, we'll never know.
Aoologies.
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147633 ] |
Mi, 12 Oktober 2005 19:45 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:vieqk1lgjckdpib9m7a09qov22vlgcdp65 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:34:23 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [snipped]
>>>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based on facts, logic and Nature.
>>>>And no one yet has been able to disprove anything I have presented here.
>>> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
>>> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
>>> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
>>> flat in the face of logic.
>>> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
>>> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
>>> I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
>>I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to dispute the evidence presented,
>>then respond to the message with the full list of addresses in the original message.
>>Of course, if the Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you from doing that,
>>then that is your problem.
> I will reply to in groups where it is appropriate. alt.startrek et
> all, in other words, groups where bsg is ot, I'm going to leave out of
> it out of courtesy to people who read those groups but not the bsg groups.
> Courtesy, not being scared of some phantom group of people that seem
> to have you terrified.
Every one of the groups I have selected for the addressing on my messages is carefully picked
and is fully compatible with the content I present.
As I have mentioned, science fiction TV across the board is under assault from Hollywood Homosexuals
who believe that the sort of youngsters who watch science fiction TV are the most open to 'new ideas'
and are thus being targeted with the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
>>> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over the place.
>>> Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my reply
>>> settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from me,
>>> except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the discussion
>>> back to where it should be.
>>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>>All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the truth.
>>I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the truth.
> Your version of the truth, which is somewhat at odds with what
> empirical evidence suggests to be the truth.
It is for those who disagree with me to disprove my arguments.
And there are clearly many homosexuals and Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here
who do disagree with me. Why do you think they have counselled each other not to engage in such debates
and are threatening weak people here not to continue debating me or to limit the Newsgroups to which]
the messages are sent ? Because they think they can defeat my arguments ?
>>>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and sourced.
>>>>Politics
>>> Yeah, right.
>>> [snipped]
>>> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
>>> concept of threaded discussions?
>>All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>Politics
> Maybe, but it's bad manners. Besides, alot of what you post is not
> written by you, and is often not correctly attributed. And one
> wonders if you have permission to repost alot of it from the original sources.
> But that/s another story. I will thank you to please not crosspost the things I write in the
> above newsgroups to newsgroups that are not related.
I am not going to limit the Newsgroup range of any of the messages I write.
You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your personal character and courage
will allow you to address.
> Your rantings about the phantom group aside, there are rules, even in
> usenet. Rules are what make for an orderly society. For the most
> part, I try to obey the 'rules of the road' in uisenet...sometimes I
> blow it, but I try and correct the behavior.
> And in following the rules, I get accused of being scared of some
> group that I don't even stipulate the existence of.
> Man oh Man. What, you can't accuse me of personal attacks, so you go
> to the 'cant chase you all over...'? You seem to have plenty of time
> on your hands.
> Either you want a serious discussion, or you want to rant. I could
> care less either way....I will out logic you in either case. But,
> since I'd like to keep those who don't care to see it out of it, I'm
> limiting it to a.bs-g a, r.a.sf.tv, and alt.politics.homosexuality.
More personal attacks.
You are free to respond or not to my messages.
Again, that is a product of your own personal character and courage.
The only limitations on cross-posting are germaneness to the topic at hand and whatever limit of cross-post
addresses one's ISP specifies.
Again, this is the Usenet. The purpose of the Usenet is an exchange of ideas and arguments between
disparate people. If any of the people in these other Newsgroups claims to disagree with my statements
they should state that disagreement.
I have no interest in this subject, since what we are talking about is really weakness of character
and lack of courage in people on these Newsgroups. That is not an interesting subject to me.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147688 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 08:51 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:8eork119prfpknsa3vldon66kmcq7vhscv [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:45:21 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your personal character and courage
>>will allow you to address.
> And this is the fellow that accuses others of personal attacks?
> It's clear that you aren't really interested in logic
> discourse...you're only interested in what you have to say. There's
> really nothing wrong with that...as long as you admit it.
> I ask that you please abide by the rules of courtesy, and you come back with this?
> Your free pass on accusing others of personal attacks is over, you
> lying, insipid, homophobic, reactionary, sodomy obsessed, sexually
> repreressed, biggoted, plagarising, misquoting, logic impared, paranoid, jackbooted blowhole.
More personal attacks.
> You know nothing about me. You woudln't recognize me if we passed
> each other on the street. What makes you think you can in any way
> shape or form make ANY statement about my character or courage? You
> wouldn't do it to my face. That's not some statement about me, it's
> about you. You think posting is an exhibition of courage.
Posting one's true point of view when personal attacks are likely to follow to many people
takes a great deal of courage.
> You don't get that it doesn't take any real courage to say something
> when no one knows who you are.
> I've seen real courage....Real courage is that kid in Beijing who
> stood in front of a tank with a rock. Courage is being the second guy
That guy in front of the tank was likely paid by CIA or some other US foreign destabilization
organization to perform that act. He was likely just as much a traitor as the puppet government running
Iraq right now.
> in line to get beaten with a club because you believe that much in
> your actions. Real courage is knowing the costs...knowing the
> price...and doing something anyway. Without masks, without pseudonyms.
> This is not real courage.
> The ball game is over, shit for brains. You're fair game now.
If you want to talk about courage, the 1950's US civil rights movement would be a better example.
Medgar Evers. Goodman, Schwerner, Chaney. Nelson Mandela.
In Mandela's case, it is widely believed that he was found and arrested by apartheid South African
authorities on a tip from President John Kennedy's CIA. Mandela languished in jail until 1990.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147689 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 09:43 |
|
now that's more accurate in my trolling opinion !
"rr (newst)" <rr [at] news.com> wrote in message
news:dig6fj$fa9$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
>> "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>>>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in
>>>alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips. He's a
>>>definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial
>>>trolling and then killfile him.
>>
>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
>> products
>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
>> messages)
>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>>
>> Politics
>>
>
> "Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is
> to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or statements, looking to
> invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be
> otherwise lacking in their life.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147690 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 10:14 |
|
"-Lunacy-" <whatnow [at] more.com> wrote in message news:Heo3f.16765$U51.1441 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> now that's more accurate in my trolling opinion !
"Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
Politics
============================================================ ==========
> "rr (newst)" <rr [at] news.com> wrote in message news:dig6fj$fa9$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
>>> "David Chapman" <jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RbKdnVj7ENk0FtbeRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
>>>>I just saw our resident religion ranter posting the same drivel in alt.fan.pratchett, crossposted to rec.arts.comics.strips.
>>>>He's a definite troll; stop responding to him, report him to ISP for serial trolling and then killfile him.
>>>
>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
>>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>>> Politics
>> "Troll" -- a socially challenged individual whose activity or behaviour is to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or
>> statements, looking to invoke or incite a response to fulfill social interaction that might be otherwise lacking in their life.
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147696 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 04:04 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vp73f.71684$lq6.20956 [at] fed1read01...
| "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
| > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked"
| > <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
| > [snipped]
| >>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based
on facts, logic and Nature.
| >>And no one yet has been able to disprove anything I have presented here.
| > Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
| > have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
| > them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
| > flat in the face of logic.
| > I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
| > discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
| > I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
|
| I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
dispute the evidence presented,
| then respond to the message with the full list of addresses in the
original message.
| Of course, if the Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here have
inimidated you from doing that,
| then that is your problem.
Lying dumbass. You stated that the word "Troll" and its current usage
was the result of:
From: "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.battlestar-galactica,rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.startrek,alt.tv. scifi.channel,re
c.arts.tv,rec.arts.drwho,alt.politics.homosexuality
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: George Peatty is a troll
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
"Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
messages)
on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
Politics
=============
WHEN ACTUALLY THE WORD *TROLL* is *OVER 389 YEARS OLD*.
Lying little worthless dumbass.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=troll&searchm ode=none
troll (n.) Look up troll at Dictionary.com
"ugly dwarf or giant," 1616, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some
speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and
derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems
to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm,
bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull,
a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There
were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician
or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was
popularized in Eng. by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the
Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a
court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among
other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in
hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick."
Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate
as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs
and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.
--
Postscript: In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by
President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White
House press corps at the time:
"George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about
Iraq-gate and Iran contra?"
"Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will
chase us down the streets and lynch us."
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147704 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 18:51 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vun3f.73253$lq6.37248 [at] fed1read01...
Please forward any post, and all posts, by the fool who calls himself John
Shocked to abuse [at] cox.net
He is violating the terms of agreement he agreed to when he became a
customer of Cox Communications. Ask Cox to start enforcing their Acceptable
Use Policy regarding USENET. http://www.cox.com/policy/
Include the headers with the post, and a brief note stating that JS is
spamming news groups with off-topic, hate-filled, and libelous posts. It
only takes a moment, but your effort will result in this fool eventually
being dropped.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147705 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 19:43 |
|
"Paul" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129219047.18663.4.camel [at] localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off you.
What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147706 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 20:03 |
|
"Malcom XXX" <mXXX [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Hgw3f.674$4O1.498 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vun3f.73253$lq6.37248 [at] fed1read01...
> Please forward any post, and all posts, by the fool who calls himself John
> Shocked to abuse [at] cox.net
> He is violating the terms of agreement he agreed to when he became a
> customer of Cox Communications. Ask Cox to start enforcing their Acceptable
> Use Policy regarding USENET. http://www.cox.com/policy/
> Include the headers with the post, and a brief note stating that JS is
> spamming news groups with off-topic, hate-filled, and libelous posts. It
> only takes a moment, but your effort will result in this fool eventually being dropped.
> Keep up the good work.
============================================================ ====================
As anyone can see from the conflict which has been going on here on this alt.battlestar-galactica Usenet
Newsgroup, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo- Conservatives are desperate on this public forums to spread their
propaganda and to censor anyone who would disagree with them.
Their goals are mainly to spread support for:
1) Homosexuality on your TV in the Movies to you and your kids, and
2) Hate for Arabs/Moslems and support the war effort to con Americans to abuse its military might to
massacre 100,000's of defenseless Arabs/Moslems.
Many of these people working on these Newsgroups are obviously paid Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative
public relations workers.
Thus, if you go to a "moderated" forum, you may well find that no conflict, as is ongoing here, exists. But
why ? It is because those Hollywood Homosexuals "moderated" Blogs and Web 'Fan' Sites are able to Ban people
that disagree with them from the site and Delete any messages posted by such people. Of course such behavior is
Censorship. So what does this mean ?
It means that whatever you read on such public forums is Not the truth and is controlled by Hollywood
Homosexual interests in a self-serving manner so that criticism of the goals they really care about is
eliminated. Thus you are not reading the truth on any such public forums.
The only public forum that more or less grants full Free Speech is the Usenet Newsgroups. While you may have to
tolerate insipid behavior by some people engaging in name-calling, swearwords, epithets etc, (usually by these
very same Hollywood Homosexual paid hacks) you always know that anyone who is determined to post the Truth on a
Usenet Newsgroup can do so, with no fear that they will be Banned from the forum and their messages Deleted.
Me, I like to go where I can find the Truth; I do not care what else is going on there.
============================================================ ====================
============================================================ ====================
As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup are desperate to put out the fire,
any way that can be accomplished.
1) Insults, threats and other attempts to intimidate me did not work.
2) False Complaints to my ISP did not work.
3) Now, the only other choice they have is to exploit the weakness and loneliness of the few true viewers of the BSG series
who are left here leveraging their fake friendship with those left as a bargaining chip to dissuade them from responding to my
messages.
Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups after all of these personal
attack campaigns have succumbed to the attacks and have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep
to herded whichever way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
These BSG HH hacks threaten Newsgroup members, claiming they will not converse with anyone who criticizes BSG,
or anyone else who converses with anyone who criticizes the BSG series. The joke is: why would anyone want to
converse with anyone whose sole job on this Newsgroup is to support BSG and sell BSG related products, like DVDs ?
And those wealthy fatcat BSG Hollywood Homosexuals make their living off chumps/stooges. You think these
fatcats are going to specially stop off their private jet, chauffeur to your house, shake your hand and thank
you for defending their right to pervert you and your kid ? You are just another piece of trash to be
manipulated and run over as far as they are concerned.
When I express my free speech on the Scifi web site, they Ban me from their forum. Get the message what they
think about your right to free speech ?
============================================================ ====================
Politics
============================================================ =====================
"Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128685233.007089.79680 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You know, you know ... I am fully aware I should just walk away from
> this, it's not possible to hold a reasoned argument .... however, one
> last attempt:
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128340400.042406.25120 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "Adam Highway" <adamhighway [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1128077348.703293.204190 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Um, if you're referring to my posting, three comments:
>> >> > 1) I've never seen BSG, not interested (sorry to those in the groups suffering cross postings)
>> >> > - it's in rec.arts.drwho and I'm stuck with your bullshit filling up bandwidth
>> >> Good to hear from the Dr. Who contingent here. Dr. Who is included in this conversation because
>> >> of reports that there was homosexuality injected into the Dr. Who storyline and script in this
>> >> current incarnation. Can you confirm or deny this ?
>> >> And do you agree with this direction in the Dr. Who ? (go on, tell us the truth).
>> > Various forms of human sexuality were referred to in the latest series.
>> > And yes, it's fantastic. Finally the show reflects the prevailing morals and beliefs of society in general.
>> > Your encouragement to "go on, tell [you] the truth" is unnecessary -
>> > I'm hardly ashamed to state something so banal and self-evident.
>> Amazing how the true prevailing morality of society voted against the homosexual agenda
>> in overwhelming numbers across the US in 2004 and 2000.
> In the 2000 election I don't think sexuality played a particularly big role.
> In 2004 it was used as a wedge issue.
> I don't believe that morality had anything to do with how people voted;
> those opposed to liberalising society do so based on fear of the
> unknown and the repressive mores of an outdated and increasingly irrelevant religion.
In 2000, Sodomy was not an issue in the Presidential campaign because Gore was not pushing
that issue, and unlike Kerry, his home State had not had a group of crooked bribed out judges
legalizing Homosexual Marriage, forcing their State's candidate to declare where he stands on this
suicidal issue. Kerry had to renounce the Sodomy issue to win. Simple.
However, the State of California did have Homosexual Marriage on the ballot in 200, and they voted
overwhelmingly against it, with Left groups like blacks and hispanics voting in higher proportions
against the homosexual agenda than the white majority in the state.
==========================================================
Kerry clearly did support Sodomy enough to take their money and try to stonewall the
homosexual agenda issue which dominated the campaign. There are a lot of Hollywood Homosexuals
in the media so the issue was not discussed that much but in one of the debates
(all 3 of which Kerry seemed to win and that prevented a total electoral landslide against
Kerry and the Democrats)
However, one questioner (I think it was a citizen, not a crooked
Hollywood Homosexual media person) broke through the crooked media praetorian guard
and asked him a question about homosexuality which gave him a chance to separate himself
from the homosexual agenda and come on to win the election.
His response failed since he stated general support for homosexuality and he did it in
that repulsive homosexual way I have been talking about here:
he dropped a name, in this case Vice President Dick Cheney's (his opponent's 2nd man)
homosexual daughter, and shunted the issue onto to Cheney saying something like his
"daughter was just being who she is".
One of the networks had a focus group of people who were wired with press button devices
to show in realtime support or disagreement with what is being said. The results were
aggregated and graphed as the candidate was speaking and it clearly showed that more than
anything else that was said in that debate, his answer to that question hurt him with the
focus group and at that point it was clear that the campaign was over.
========================================================
>> >> > 2) It's not my job, I don't work in/for Hollywood, have nothing to do with BSG
>> >> The same Hollywood Homosexuals pushing Sodomy in BSG are also pushing Sodomy in Dr. Who.
>> >> Hollywood Homosexuals have satellite office in the UK. The home of Elton John has to have a
>> >> vibrant Sodomy/Entertainment nexus.
>> > FYI, newsflash: Homosexuality does not equate with sodomy, per se. (by
>> > the way, why do you always capitalise sodomy? is it a brand name now?).
>> > For example, one notable strand of homosexuality is lesbianism where,
>> > while not unheard of, sodomy usually plays a relatively small role.
>> > Equally, there a numerous heterosexual couples who enjoy sodomy as part
>> > of their perfectly normal, healthy sex lives. And RTD has very little
>> > to do with Hollywood, AFAIK.
>> Sodomy is definitely a key component of the homosexual world.
>> I have heard that women sometimes artificially achieve Sodomy through prosthetics.
>> There are no statistics available that state that heterosexual couples engage regularly in Sodomy.
> Sodomy is *A* component of homosexuality. There are many gay men who never participate in anal sex.
Rubbish. Sodomy is paydirt for male homosexuals.
> Lesbians *may* use sex toys to carry out anal sex, but I have no particular interest in knowing the statistics.
> There are innumerable studies that anal sex is enjoyed by many straight couples.
> I'm not going to indulge you by performing the very simplest of google searches for you.
There are no such studies. There are some studies which say that significant numbers of homosexuals
have tried Sodomy together at least once.
>> >> > 3) When it comes to you, it absolutely IS rudeness, and SHOULD be taken personally.
>> >> > You mindless fuckwitted cunt brain.
>> >> I am so hurt by this insult. Please stop saying such horrible things. You know I cannot take it.
>> > Fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck! Fuck!
>> Seriously, you can say what you want. But you ought to try to win this thing.
>> I am vulnerable. To the winner goes the spoils.
> I know I can say what I want, thank you for your permission.
> That said, I'm bored of this interminable back-and-forth with nothing
> being taken on board. You can't have a discussion with someone who
> ignores points that are uncomfortable and simply regurgitates the same
> mindless pablum. So I'm not reading or responding to these posts any
> longer. Enjoy your own little world.
You have lost every single point and I am not surprised you or your corner have thrown in the towel.
============================================================
><pbowles [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1121782197.469495.27830 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>As I have mentioned, one of the big problems in this country which we have yet
>>>>to deal with appropriately and head on is corrupt judges.
>>>You may have mentioned it, but you haven't supported it and your
>>>reasoning is circular - the judges are corrupt because I don't like
>>>their decision, and they'd only make decisions I don't like if they
>>>were corrupt.
>>No, judges are corrupt when it is clear that their decision deviate from
>>written Statutes and the US Constitution and/or the Facts of the case.
>>Most obvious was US Supreme Court Plessy v Ferguson (1896) legalizing
>>racial segregation, which violated clearly the 14th Amendment.
>You really don't think the judicial system has been improved in the
>past 110 years?
Corruption cannot be chased out of the seats of government without scandals,
and the crooks in the Hollywood Homosexual controlled Press are determined that there
never be any scandals in the Judiciary, because they have a nice cozy deal going with
these crooked judges to obtain favorable illegal expansions on the First Amendment
from these same Courts. Congress must act to eradicate this relationship between the
US Supreme Court and the Press by taking away the ability of the US Supreme Court
to render these illegal expansions of the First Amendment in their crooked bribed out decisions.
>>There is a running commercial in the US over the past few months in which
>>Elton John does kiss a Dog on the mouth.
>Could be worse - they could be torturing the viewer with that "Puppy
>Love" song like they have done in UK adverts...
I never figured out what that Osmond song was about.
>>Hollywood Homosexuals' strategy is that once they make the viewers accustomed
>>to mouth kissing animals, vomiting in the face of the viewer, dogs urinating on people
>>and showing people going to the bathroom, once people are accustomed to
>>these sorts of revolting behaviors,
>>then what could possibly be wrong with Sodomy ?
>Wow, you really aren't content with just putting your foot in it, are
>you? You have to leap in headfirst. Now you're comparing sodomy with
>going to the bathroom - so by your logic that should be banned on the
>basis of being 'revolting'.
Banning people going to the bathroom ? No. Ban Hollywood Homosexuals
showing it on TV, Yes.
>>>On his other song, he does not write his own lyrics, Bernie Taupin does.
>>>True, but Taupin writes them for him and has included some with
>>>homosexual themes in recent years ("Made in England" and "Freaks in
>>>Love" - the latter never released as a single, the former not one of
>>>Elton's major hits), but overwhelmingly Elton sings and has sung love
>>>songs about heterosexual or ambiguous relationships.
>>Obviously, Elton John has always known that if he force fed his customers
>>Sodomy, they would run for the hills in drives and his career would be over.
>Maybe he doesn't actually have an agenda to "force feed his customers
>sodomy"; ever thought of that? He's been open about his sexuality since
>the late '70s and his customers have known it, at which time he was the
>most popular artist among the American public. He remains the world's
>best-selling living musician to this day - do you really think it would
>be so different if he substituted the odd 'he' for the various 'shes'
>in his songs? When the first series of the Pop Idol talent show was
>shown in the UK, I heard (since I didn't watch it) that it was won by a
>singer who was open about his homosexuality from day one - based on
>votes cast by the general public. He then went straight to Number 1
>with his first song - face it, homosexuality simply isn't an issue for
>the public at large.
You just never know what the truth is about a claim of a public vote
until it is done at the ballot box. Hollywood Homosexuals are dishonest people.
We have seen that here on this Newsgroup.
What makes you think the vote was not falsified ?
There is clearly something to gain and they have the availability to con the public
about the results. Why should they not ?
>>>>>>Buying politicians is not the democratic process.
>>>>> You really are fond of throwing libelous, unsubstantiated allegations
>>>>> around, aren't you? The vote didn't go the way you hoped it would, so
>>>>> naturally the voting politicians are corrupt. Self-evident; no need for
>>>>> anything as useless as *evidence* to back up such ideas...
>>>>When politicians or judges vote against the will of the people they represent,
>>>>financial corruption is the most common reason for that.
>>>Another unsubstantiated comment - the UK government supported the EU
>>>constitution while a likely majority of the British public didn't. This
>>>isn't because the government is corrupt, it's because the people had
>>>elected it to make decisions on their behalf for the next four years.
>>>In any case, was the Spanish vote against the will of the people?
>>>I believe it was part of the new government's manifesto when it was
>>>elected, in which case the government is entitled to claim public
>>>backing for the measure.
>>Most people believe that it was the coincidence of the Spain having troops in the
>>US Iraq Massacre
>While a Bush campaign focusing entirely on the aftermath of 9/11 and
>the need for the War on Terror and tight national security laws had
>nothing whatever to do with his victory in the US? Are you really
>saying that while the Spanish voted on relevant, topical political
>issues with repercussions beyond their borders the Americans voted
>based on trivia like gay marriage? Do you honestly believe the
>Americans are that much more stupid than the Spanish?
Bush's campaign was based on attacking his opponent John Kerry who was
an incompetent candidate and should never be the nominee of the Democrats again.
You may already know this, since US news seems to be covered a lot over there,
but the central issues of the 2004 Presidential campaign:
1) Kerry was from the State of Massachusetts and crooked bribed out Judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts earlier in 2004 had made a decision which legalized Homosexual Marriage in his home State. This
caused an outrage across the country and since Kerry was from that State it was critical that he clearly separate
himself from that issue in a big way. Perhaps a Sister Souljah moment, (wherein Clinton in 1992 attacked a black
woman rapper to gain favor with the US white voters). This crooked Court decision put the homosexual agenda
heavily into the campaign and if the True Left (The Poor, Blacks, Unions, Women) mattered to Kerry he had to act
to represent the Left and reject the homosexual agenda. He refused to do that, because he was determined to
accept Hollywood Homosexual money in the campaign. The weird thing about this failure is that I have never heard
Kerry make a major speech supporting the homosexual agenda in any way.
2) Kerry was a decorated Vietnam war veteran. Bush was able through pulling strings
to obtain a position in the Texas National Guard and avoid being drafted to serve in Vietnam.
However, these strings were difficult to prove.
What developed was incredible. Bush's campaign friends paid $200,000 to support a
group of Vietnam War veterans to allege that Kerry medals were improperly earned and
that some of the injuries he sustained were exaggerated.
After Kerry won the Democratic nomination, these Republican encouraged attacks flooded
the advertising on TV and also even the Hollywood Homosexual controlled News shows
which debated these charges incessantly. Kerry was silent throughout this. What was
necessary in the middle of this was for Kerry to come forward and make the simple statement
repeatedly "I served my country in Vietnam. Bush could have enlisted and served as I did,
but he failed to serve this country".
These were two simple tests which Kerry should have hopped, skipped and jumped over but
he failed to defuse these issues and so the campaign remained about these 2 issues to the end.
No other issues were debated and settled in the campaign.
The fact is that Bush was a severely wounded sitting President, with an economy which had
collapsed, he failed to pres\vent the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
and he lied to con the US into this Iraq Massacre, which by the time of the election was a
liability for Bush.
Kerry was simply incompetent on these 2 issues and should never be President.
>>and the bombing of Spain by freedom fighters opposed to
>>the Iraq Massacre just days before the elections
>Which would be wrong, since polls from before the attacks placed the
>socialists firmly in the lead.
That is not what I heard. And even now, they only hold a slight lead in seats
in the 350 Seat legislature, 164 to 148.
==========================================================
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114147,00.html
Aznar chose not to seek a third term, saying he wanted renewal in government and his party.
Pre-election polls had favored his ruling party to win handily.
But on election day voters expressed anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the
Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which a vast majority of Spaniards opposed.
===========================================================
>>>>>>An issue of this type which involves the issues of wealthy people should be
>>>>>>put to the electorate in a plebiscital vote ballot question.
>>>>> So, only wealthy people are homosexual now?
>>>>A disproportionate number of homosexuals are wealthy.
>>>Where are the statistics to support that? Many of the best-known
>>>homosexuals are wealthy, but that's equally true of the best-known
>>>heterosexuals - they're well-known because they're wealthy, usually
>>>celebrities.
>>======================================================
>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=article&am p;articleid=C...
>>
>>Spending Muscle
>>Gays and lesbians had a half trillion dollars in disposable income in 2004
>>Group Population (million) Buying Power (billion)
>>Entire U.S. 292 $8,600
>>Whites 217 $7,000
>>Blacks 37 $723
>>Hispanics 41 $686
>>GLBT* 15 $585
>>Asians 12 $363
>>*GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) reflects the 6%-7% of Americans
>>age 18+ who identify themselves as GLBT, according to the
>>Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combos.
>>SOURCES: Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combos,
>>Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.
>>=======================================================
>>I do not believe there are 15 million homosexuals in the US. Maybe 6 or 7.
>Then your maths as well as your comprehension are at fault - firstly
>that also included bisexuals (who are probably more common than
>homosexuals) and transsexuals (who aren't but probably still represent
>a couple of million or more). Homosexuals are estimated to make up
>between 1 in 12 and 10% of the population worldwide - yet 6 or 7 would
>put the US figure barely above 2%. What possible reason do you have for
My "maths" were just right. I do not believe there are more than 2% of the US
being homosexual. That is around 6 million.
>believing the US has so much fewer proportionately than anyone else?
>This is undoubtedly an underestimate. Admittedly these figures are
>slightly disproportionate, but note the qualifier that this is based on
>self-declared homosexuals - middle-class homosexuals live in a
>generally more accepting part of society than working-class ones, and
>in the US specifically the areas of greatest tolerance are the
>wealthier, more developed states and urban centres.
Fraud and media manipulation is easier in many other countries.
>>>>>>Civil Rights is about people who already had rights but who had those rights denied
>>>>> Like, oh to take a random example, the banning of sodomy (legal in
>>>>> England until 1533, for instance)?
>>>>Legal, meaning there was no law which addressed Sodomy ?
>>>>Democracy in the UK was a gradual development which did not completely
>>>>gel until the late 1600's. But my guess is Parliament was responsible for that law.
>>>You'd guess wrong - it was put in place by Henry VIII, who didn't have
>>>much time for Parliament in his decision-making. Parliament didn't gain
>>>the ability to pass laws at all until after the Civil War.
>>Parliament passed laws to levy taxes before the English Civil War.
>OK, I should have qualified that - taxation was the only function of
>Parliament; it had no ability to pass laws on civil matters.
>Essentially, before the Civil War Parliament acted as a treasury - the
>King appealed to it when he wanted money gained from tax revenue, and
>the laws setting taxes originated with him, though they were passed by
>Parliament. Henry VIII, for instance, had to appeal to Parliament to
>pass a Shipping Act to levy taxes, but Parliament simply rubber-stamped
>the law the monarch had proposed.
At least, if they did not rubber stamp his law, sometimes the King's henchmen
would come into the Parliament and arrest people.
>>>>> completely missing the point being made - this has nothing whatsoever
>>>>> to do with black attitudes towards homosexuality. Blacks themselves
>>>>> would still be a minority group (although strictly speaking they are
>>>>> close to becoming the majority ethnic group in some Western nations)
>>>>> even if members in some other minority group were racist towards them.]
>>>>More dishonesty. I did not make the above statement.
>>>Nor did I say you did, again it was analogy - a(nother) concept you
>>>appear unable to grasp. You made the absurd case that homosexuals can't
>>>be a minority group because some members of another minority group
>>>don't like them, which I was pointing out is, indeed, absurd.
>>Rubbish. If you base minority groups on behavior, there are a million behaviors,
>>including murder, drug use/sales, gambling etc which could constitute "minorities".
>You're the only one basing a group on behaviour - are you only
>heterosexual when engaging in heterosexual activity? A practising
>heterosexual, yes, but sexual identity isn't defined by behaviour, it's
>defined by orientation - who people are sexually attracted to - which
>is as innate as colour, gender or disability. A homosexual could be
>celibate as easily as a heterosexual, but would still be a homosexual.
No. A homosexual engages in Sodomy and/or other related sexual acts
or he is not a homosexual.
>>>Rubbish. If that disease was in existence in Africa before, it would have showed
>>>up long before, since African communities have undergone the least change of most
>>>communities in the world over the past 30 years.
>>>The disease was likely created in Defense Biological Warfare laboratory and
>>>then spread from a Western country to Africa by Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>Is there any loony conspiracy theory you won't latch onto, however
>>poorly-researched?
>>If this disease has been around for decades before the early 1980's, how do you
>>explain that it was not a problem and did not spread widely in Africa before now ?
>A combination of factors - firstly HIV itself causes no symptoms, just
>renders carriers more susceptible to the AIDS virus, and so people can
>go for a long time without AIDS symptoms, which themselves take around
>a decade to manifest. So the disease had plenty of time to spread
>before symptoms became widespread, and Africa's a large place for it to
>spread through. What's more, in case you hadn't noticed, the past two
>decades have seen a lot more turmoil in Africa than the previous ones,
>with post-colonial dictators being overthrown, wars destroying health
>systems and creating refugees who spread into neighbouring countries
>carrying whatever diseases they have with them. People like Mbeki and
>Mugabe weren't around to stifle AIDS research and treatment in their
>countries before the '90s. And sexual habits over the continent have
>changed just as much as those in the West, with promiscuity becoming
>more widespread. Whatever the combination of reasons - and these are
>the accepted ones, and indeed mentioned in the BBC article - it is
>undeniable that the first AIDS case did occur in West Africa, that it
>has been traced to chimpanzees, and that it occurred several decades
>before its emergence in the West.
The issue is where and how the AIDS virus was created and how it was transported to Africa.
What you have described in terms of incubation period and decades makes my point.
Given the stealth nature of the disease (carriers do not show symptoms and thus are more
likely to be able to spread the disease to more unsuspecting victims), if that disease had
been around for even the last 100 years, there would have been a much more widespread penetration of the continent.
Just in the last decade there has been a huge explosion in the spread of AIDS in Africa.
You really think there is something special going on there in just the last 2 decades behaviorally
that is different from the preceding 8 decades ?
AIDS is much more capable of spreading because the carrier does not know he has the
disease sometimes for years.
>>>>This is another of those clear differences between the black community and
>>>>the homosexual community. No one in the black community believes that
>>>>AIDS was created in Africa. It is a ridiculous claim and since AIDS in
>>>>obviously a new disease. No one is ever cured of AIDS and habits in
>>>>Africa have not changed that much.
>>>>To hear someone who is a homosexual sympathizer accusing falsely the
>>>>black population in Africa of bringing AIDS to the world is one of those clear beacons
>>>>of what the fraud is we are talking about here, that homosexuals and blacks are in a common struggle.
>>>You're really hung up on race, aren't you? It's irrelevant what colour
>>>the first person to be infected was - HIV doesn't discriminate. The
>>>first human victim happened to be black merely because this particular
>>>disease happens to have emerged in Africa, whose native population is
>>>predominantly black, just like Ebola.
>>I heard the first human victim was a white homosexual.
>Read the article. You heard wrong. It may well be that the first victim
>of the "AIDS epidemic" the media fussed about in the '80s (and that
>never actually emerged in the West) was a white homosexual, but
>certainly not the first human victim.
That is simply something that is not proven. And if you read between the lines of that BBC article, you will realize that the
reporter did not believe that either. No one with a simple logical mind is going to believe that such a powerful incurable disease
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
>>>Note: this is a report of a scientific finding. Not a Hollywood
>>>Homosexual lobby group, not an unsubstantiated opinion by an internet
>>>bigot. It produces verifiable evidence, and reports empirical facts
>>>about the history of the disease. In fact it cites the first known case
>>>of AIDS - in 1959 (okay, I was out in saying a century, but the point
>>>remains that this was before the disease was ever known in the West),
>>>in the Congo (where the chimps live, curiously enough). It didn't reach
>>>the West until the 1970s at the earliest and only became a public
>>>health concern in the '80s.
>>How do you know this scientist does not receive funding from the Defense Dept.
>>and has an incentive to cover this up ?
>What reason do you have to suppose that she has? Nature is a
>peer-reviewed journal which has a very good reputation to protect, and
>scientific papers submitted for publication require referees; papers
>and researchers are vetted for conflicts of interest before they ever
>get to the pages of a peer-reviewed publication. This is why, for
>instance, people like Paul Cameron are unable to publish in these
>journals.
Do you realize that these researchers are overwhelmingly dependent on the Federal
government or the national government of other countries to pay them to create these
diseases and hopefully cures of some diseases ?
They are going to go to whatever lengths are necessary not to take the blame for this
catastrophic disease.
What is weird is that there have never been Congressional hearings to delve to the bottom
of this issue, putting the researchers at various laboratories under oath.
Meanwhile, these biological researchers are robbing us blind, claiming they are working
on a cure which never appears.
>> Do you notice how the BBC reports what
>>they are told by these scientists but then presents a volley of information that
>>contradicts the veracity of the claims.
>None of it does, and I've read the article thoroughly.
>>================================================
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
>>In the early days of Aids research, dozens of chimps were deliberately infected
>>with the HIV virus to see if they developed the disease. To the surprise of scientists,
>>they did not, despite sharing 98% of their genetic material with humans.
>>================================================
>You do understand the concept of a carrier, I take it? A mosquito
>carries dengue and malaria parasites, but it's immune (or largely so)
>to the symptoms of both diseases. Infected snails don't die from
>giardia. A carrier is an organism that carries a disease but which
>doesn't exhibit symptoms.
I have made clear that this carrier aspect of AIDS is are major spreading
accelerator for the disease.
>>Now, let us say the truth is that these biological warfare engineers infected
>>some test chimps from Africa with their cocktail of the day, and no disease
>>developed. They assumed that the chimps were disease free and returned
>>them to Africa.
>>Let us say a bestialist was involved in this testing and when he felt lonely
>>one night he thought one of these chimps looked fine.
>>Bestialitst then meets homosexual, they hook up. Then homosexual goes
>>to the bathhouse and engages with 5 partners that night.
>>Once this disease reaches a homosexual, it explodes.
>>That is one of the likely ways this thing spread.
>No, that's a convoluted conspiracy fantasy - captive chimps, like all
>research animals, are generally bred in captivity and certainly aren't
>'returned' to the wild. The assumptions are completely absurd, starting
>with the improbability of any such infected research animal being
>encountered by a randy bestialist. Note also that the infection of
>chimps with HIV took place *after* the first human case in 1959; before
>that the disease simply wasn't known, so no one was conducting research
>on it at all.
That was just one of the scenarios, as I mentioned. Another would be that the monkeys
which were returned to Africa were eaten by bushmen there and some of the bushmen
cut themselves or were bitten while killing the animal before eating it. That could clearly
have spread the disease to Africa.
>>>>>>>Even homosexuals in the psychological business admit that homosexuality
>>>>>>>>develops early in life normally
>>>>>>> Sexuality of all forms develops early in life - at a stage known as puberty.
>>>>>>There is only one true sexuality. Everything else, including Sodomy and Bestiality,
>>>>>>is deviant.
>>>>> That's simply a statement of opinion.
>>>>Most people overwhelmingly believe this.
>>>Something for which you still have only your own claim and
>>>interpretation of votes cast on completely different matters to go by.
>>Who are you going to believe. Hollywood Homosexuals in the Press who
>>claim they represent the public, or actual popular Votes ?
>There have been no "actual popular Votes" on the issue that I'm aware
>of, and certainly the US presidential elections don't count - that
>wasn't a single issue poll, and even if it were the
>homosexuality-related issue in Kerry's manifesto had nothing to do with
>attitudes about homosexuality or even homosexual unions, merely
>attitudes towards homosexual marriage.
>>>> And that is democracy.
>>>Reality isn't a matter of democracy - however many people hold it an
>>>opinion remains an opinion, not a fact.
>>The people choose. That is democracy.
>More than 50% of Americans apparently believe to choose in creationism.
>That doesn't mean that evolution didn't happen in America, although
>from this statistic and the bigoted attitudes found in much of rural
>America, it seems that it might have stopped with sea urchins in some
>parts of the continent.
If one believes in the Bible, then one has to believe all of it, so if such a person is
asked whether they believe Genesis is true, of course they will say yes.
A better question is how many people believe in evolution.
>>>>>I have posted numerous quotes here in which it is clear to the experts that
>>>>>>Sodomy is an acquired trait.
>>>>> Not in this thread or any other I've read on the Dr Who newsgroup you
>>>>> haven't, and since you seem so eager to have people restate their own
>>>>> points ad nauseam at you it seems only reasonable to demand you do the
>>>>> same.
>>>>I posted the Cameron piece.
>>>A post from someone with a clear agenda, whose work has never been
>>>peer-reviewed, whose argumentation is poor, his misuse of statistics
>>>bordering on the fraudulent, who has reportedly been barred from the
>>>American Psychological Association for misusing his sources and has
>>>been the subject of a Court ruling that he has misrepresented evidence.
>>>He certainly does not qualify as an expert.
>>APA (American Psychological Association) acted against Cameron because
>>he advocated against Sodomy
>Correct. Advocating a political position is not compatible with
>belonging to a credible scientific association.
This issue is not happening in abstraction. Lots of homosexuals go to psychologists and
ask the Dr. "what is wrong with me" ?
I doubt these psychologists see many heterosexuals coming in and complaining about
their heterosexuality. If a doctor knows what is causing a man's homosexuality,
he ought to share it with parents, especially if this is an inclination which occurs
in childhood and can in many cases be prevented.
>>and that organization is dominated by university types
>Cameron has a PhD, implying that he spent at least some time in a
>university environment - University of Colorado, to be exact.
>>who love Sodomy.
>Are they on record saying this as well?
Sodomy is all over university campuses.
>>>>This is nonsense. There is no question that skin color is genetic
>>>>and is very predictable
>>>No there isn't, but that's not what I said. Cameron demands a single
>>>gene for homosexuality - why should there be one? There's no single
>>>gene for skin colour, it's a product of epistasis - multiple genes
>>>influencing one another's expression. In fact there are something like
>>>200 genes affecting the precise colour of someone's skin. Like skin
>>>colour, sexuality appears to fall along a spectrum, from those who are
>>>completely uninterested in the same sex to those who are completely
>>>uninterested in the opposite sex and those who have no sexual interest
>>>in either, with a range of preferences in between. It seems wholly
>>>plausible that this is the product of a complex of multiple genes, and
>>>wholly implausible that a single gene will be responsible.
>>There is no compelling evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
>It fits the pattern for genetic characters - the spectrum from one
>'extreme' to another, the fact that there are strong associations
>between homosexual individuals and a history of homosexuality in the
>family, the innate orientation towards a particular sex. Homosexuality
>has been recorded in a wide range of animal species, from butterflies
>and octopi to mammals (including chimpanzees) and birds. What's more
>the fact that heterosexuality is genetic (something few would
>reasonably doubt) implies that, in the absence of evidence to the
>contrary, the most plausible explanation is that there is a genetic
>basis. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. In any case,
>'biological', as I said before, need not imply 'genetic' - maternal
>effects are clearly at work. In any of these cases the consequence is
>the same: homosexuality is innate and is not a matter of choice. That
>is the relevant issue, not whether homosexuality is genetic (as appears
>likely) or has some other biological origin.
Again, these claims of animal homosexuality would have to be proven in a controlled
environment where Hollywood Homosexuals cannot abuse pheromones and other
chemicals to induce animal homosexual behavior which was not there before.
I call it animal abuse and if any of these Hollywood Homosexuals are caught
introducing homosexuality to animals to make their point, they should be arrested
and thrown in prison. I have never seen any animal homosexuality myself.
>> And obviously, if homosexuality was genetic, evolution would have
>>caused it to die out, since those who engage in it are unlikely to have kids.
>For anyone with more than a simplistic understanding of evolution, that
>isn't obvious - there's the possibility that homosexuals benefit their
>relatives in some way (kin selection), although the evidence suggests
>that this isn't the case, at least not in the way normally envisaged,
>and homosexuals are known to have children, as are bisexuals, which is
>enough to keep any genes coding for homosexuality in the gene pool. If
>a suite of genes rather than a single gene is responsible it may be
>hard for natural selection to act against, and there may be trade-offs
>- those genes may have benefits in non-homosexuals who carry them that
>promote their persistence in the gene pool. No one knows exactly why
>homosexuality hasn't been eliminated by natural selection, it's true,
>but the fact that it hasn't isn't evidence in itself against a genetic
>cause.
People do know. That is what the Cameron piece is about. Homosexuality is learned
behavior and could be stamped out if children were protecting from predatory behavior
and Hollywood Homosexuals telling them that Sodomy is ok in TV series like Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>given the skin colors of the parents.
>>>Usually, but it's certainly not unknown for black parents to have a
>>>child with fairer skin than either, even when both are the genetic
>>>parents. And of course there is a degree of environmental influence -
>>>hence the tanning of Caucasians in sunnier areas than those to which
>>>they are acclimatised.
>>Not without the husband demanding to know who the his wife cheated on him with.
>He can demand it, but sometimes genetic tests will show that he is the
>father - it's rare, but it isn't unknown.
The tabloid news has it that Prince Harry was tested in this way. In fact, I think both
Harry and William were tested.
>>>The document clearly does address the sources of homosexual desire.
>>>And generally it is the child's senses being tricked by a molester to
>>>accept homosexuality instead of heterosexuality
>>>and poor relations with a father figure.
>>>The document says no such thing - it is a poll of what people
>>>identified in hindsight as the (usually sexual) experience that 'got
>>>them into' homosexuality (which incidentally doesn't mention
>>>molestation let alone being 'tricked'), which does nothing to explain
>>>where that desire came from. All this assumes, of course, that Cameron
>>>wasn't misquoting his source this time, which I can't be bothered to
>>>check.
>>It does say that. It says that these kids likely would not have assumed
>>a life of Sodomy if they had not met the wrong molester early in life and/or
>>had better relations with their parents.
>It certainly doesn't say anything like that - even Cameron hasn't
>stooped to that level of distortion. Again, there's no mention of
>'molestors', and in any case all it asks is why they thought they first
>engaged in homosexual activity - not what they might have done had they
>had closer relationships with their parents or no sexual experience
>with an adult. And, as mentioned, these are old sources - very nearly
>antique by the standards of a young science, in fact. Cameron himself
>admits that even the second one took place only as the gay activism
>movement was beginning - in other words, these studies date to a time
>when homosexuals were encouraged to think of their sexuality was wrong
>and conditioned (by the theories of Freud and others) to believe that
>there was something in their upbringing that led to their
>homosexuality. Yet as I pointed out it still doesn't explain their
>sexual orientation, at most only their sexual activity. This is one of
>the reasons anecdotal evidence is poor science.
Again, homosexuality is learned behavior, like taking heroin or marijuana.
If Cameron is old hat, who have you read which has newer ideas on the causes of
homosexuality.
>>>>Some people gain sexual climax from fetishes like stamping on insects like cockroaches.
>>>>Do you think that is genetic too ?
>>>>Some have sex with dogs. Genetic ?
>>>Do you have any particular reason to believe it might not be? Not being
>>>familiar with research in these areas I'm not in a position to assert
>>>either way, but it's a sign of narrow-mindedness to assume one way or
>>>the other without investigation. Not that you've been shy to exhibit
>>>signs of narrow-mindedness. After all, heterosexuality almost certainly
>>>has a genetic basis; unless there's a good reason to believe that other
>>>forms of sexual behaviour have a fundamentally different underlying
>>>mechanism the most plausible explanation is that they also have a
>>>genetic basis. And looking at the statistics Cameron provides, fewer
>>>than 2% of boys exposed to homosexual experiences choose to practice
>>>homosexuality in later life - which suggests that experience is not a
>>>significant factor in determining sexuality.
>>It says 2% of the boys succumbed to the homosexual advances they received.
>Or, to put it another way, 33% (of 35% of the sampled boys) didn't -
>which would you say is the more significant figure?
Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. So these small percentages
are right on the mark.
>>And 2% of all heterosexuals claim they were homosexual at one time.
>Where did it say that? In any case how is a possible coincidence
>relevant? Homosexuals represent considerably more than 2% of the
>population, so this still suggest that only a minority are susceptible
>to changing their sexuality.
======================================================
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html
7) There are many ex-homosexuals
Whatever the mechanism, in a 1984 study (5) almost 2% of heterosexuals
reported that at one time they considered themselves to be homosexual.
It is clear that a substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual
preferences at any given time.
=======================================================
>>>>With a vibrator. Genetic ?
>>>Nonsensical analogy - the whole point of a vibrator is to simulate the
>>>sexual experience; obviously it's intended to produce the
>>>genetically-primed response.
>>That is the point. All these deviant behaviors simulate male-female sex.
>No, the behaviours 'simulate' (indeed are) sex, not specifically that
>between males and females. I'm not in a position to compare how well
>they simulate one another - are you?
Sounds like that is a question for a bisexual-bestialist.
>>>There are two main camps spending money to put out information in this arena.
>>>[Hollywood] Homosexuals and Churches. I do not have the impression that Cameron
>>>is overwhelmingly devout; he seems to have just hooked up with the people
>>>who pay for unflattering homosexual information.
>>>It's true that he's hooked up with people who pay for his propaganda -
>>>the article I cited pointed out that he appears unable to publish
>>>anything in peer-reviewed journals, only in ones that take any
>>>submissions they're paid to. Devout or not his clear homophobic bias
>>>and chairmanship of the FRI represents a conflict of interest when he
>>>claims to make objective assertions about homosexuality.
>>He obviously has studied homosexual behavior, encountered numerous people
>>coming into his office asking him "what is wrong with me, doc ?"
>How is that obvious? Nothing in that particular article, at any rate,
>was based on any research of his - he just collated research from
>authors writing 30+ years ago that appeared to support his preconceived
>position. In any case he isn't a psychiatrist (he isn't even officially
>a psychologist) - his job isn't to study patients to find out what's
>'wrong' with them.
Apparently, he was defrocked by the homosexual elite at the APA
(American Psychological Association).
>>>> This is not the most important issue to me
>>>Then what is? If your objection isn't even a spurious 'moral' one, what
>>>possible complaint do you have about it?
>>I already stated my objections to it being on TV in BSG.
>Which, as others have shown, it isn't.
None have refuted any of the evidence that Sodomy is in BSG.
Personal attacks and denials are not a counter-arguments. Just a strategy which
works to discourage guys stating my views normally, but not in this case.
>>>>but it does put homosexuality in the same category with other behaviors
>>>>which are harmful to society such as drugs, gambling, prostitution,
>>>Right, this is more than tiresome. Drugs are harmful to individuals -
>>>family members and friends of abusers who suffer distress, people in
>>>the supply train who are subject to extortion, blackmail and other
>>>criminal acts by the drug cartels, people living under the regimes
>>>funded by the drugs industry, people affected by smuggling operations
>>>such as arms smuggling funded by said industry (not to mention the
>>>animal populations at risk from the trade in endangered wildlife, which
>>>is closely linked to the drugs trade), individuals attacked, brutalised
>>>or killed by the cartels propped up by the profits from drug use and so
>>>on and so forth. Prostitution and gambling (and indeed drug use as
>>>well) are social welfare issues due to the harm caused to people who
>>>find themselves forced into those situations. There is nothing in
>>>homosexuality which is even remotely equivalent to any of these.
>>>Hint: for something to be wrong, it must harm *someone*, an individual,
>>>not some half-baked distortion of discredited utilitarian ideas like
>>>some aggregate "Life".
>>When your civilization becomes extinct, I would consider that serious harm
>>to the community.
>Here's news for you - humanity isn't becoming extinct, and isn't
>anywhere close to that point. Nor are European nations with populations
>in the tens of millions with a short-term decline in birth rates. You
>still haven't explained what makes homosexuality or sodomy any
>different from other tendencies or activities that don't maximise birth
>rates.
How do you know it is short term. 1.2 fertility is outrageously low
when 2.1 is required to replaced the dead.
>>>> none of which would have the result of extinction of the human race
>>>> if everyone engaged in these other behaviors.
>>Nice tactic here of posing a argument just before its refutation.
>It's an irrelevant point - not everyone is 'engaging in these other
>behaviours' (though are you really saying that if murder were
>universalised, it wouldn't result in a rather more rapid extinction of
>the human race than sodomy?), and even if they were it doesn't follow
>that they'd be doing so to the exclusion of engaging in heterosexual
>relationships as well. Drug use, rape, murder etc. all constitute
>identifiable harm to real individuals in the real world, regardless of
>how many people carry them out. If you have to stretch to a wholly
>imaginary and implausible situation in order to justify your position,
>it hardly amounts to a refutation.
Not all murderers are successful. And only half the population (males, or the females)
would have to be homosexual to cause the population to die out.
>>>The US public voted overwhelmingly against the homosexual agenda in 11 out of 11 States
>>>just 7 months ago. You see any of those people here ?
>>It's hard to make any comment when you trot out meaningless soundbites
>>>- what precisely did they vote against? I find it very hard to believe
>>>the ballot paper asked them whether or not they supported the
>>>'homosexual agenda'. What is that agenda? And what leads you to believe
>>>that that was a deciding issue in the US election any case? I was under
>>>the impression the vote was to determine who would run the country, not
>>>a poll on their views about the candidates' attitudes towards
>>>homosexuality. As for whether or not there are people here who voted
>>>against Kerry, how should I know? I imagine there are at least some.
>>This newsgroup does not represent the public at large.
>>Somehow Hollywood Homosexuals have been able to put over this scam
>>on the Usenet through using public relations hacks to insult,
>Hmm...you posted to alt.politics.homosexuality among other groups, I
>noticed. And you're surprised that it "somehow" contained homosexuals?
Not surprised at that, but many heterosexuals are interested in communicating with
homosexuals to understand better what is going on and to discourage their activity
trying to sell Sodomy to you and your kids through TV in BSG..
I would expect heterosexuals and homosexuals to be on that Newsgroup, assuming
that free speech exists and ISPs are not interfering customers' service.
>>threaten, intimidate people out of coming here with my opinion
>Pointing out that your comments are nothing short of moronic constitutes a 'threat'?
No, threats to stop making these statements or else, or that false complaints will
be made to my ISP etc.
>> and if that does not work making false complaints to their ISP.
>As someone else pointed out, any complaint about your spamming groups
>with multiple off-topic posts, including those intended to be
>inflammatory, does generally violate ISP rules and so any complaint
>would be valid.
Again, this is a false complaint to categorize my statements as "spam"
The truth matters.
>>>How about this - they were actually having a fight, as indeed was
>>>indicated by the script, symbolising, well, a fight? As others have
>>>alluded to on one of these threads, plenty of characters in plenty of
>>>series have been shown fighting other men and even grappling with them
>>>on the ground.
>>Not with that exact symbolism.
>>And I recognized this first time out in Bastille Day. I had no idea at the time
>>that they had used the identical imagery in Colonial Day, which aired about 6 weeks later.
>They used the word "Day" in the title of both episodes as well - does
>that indicate some sort of sinister running symbolism?
No idea. But several of the names of the episodes have homosexual overtones.
Bastille Day is a major European homosexual celebratory day.
Six Degrees of Separation was a play and Hollywood Homosexual movie in which
Will Smith played a homosexual.
>>>A series which sells Sodomy
>>The only gay character in the series is a girl... No sodomy involved.
>>and Drugs (Dracula vampire myth is about
>>Woman-woman homosexuality is used by Hollywood Homosexuals as a metaphor for Sodomy.
>Only in your mind.
A lot of minds. Strong perceptive minds.
>>>> Drugs in your Jugular vein opium injection).
>>>Vampire myths predate injected drugs by a long way - Bram Stoker just
>>>cobbled together a story from existing European folklore.
>>>Philip Bowles
>>When is the earliest vampire bite on the jugular myth that you know of ?
>I haven't found anything that specific about most, but since the
>jugular is a major source of easily-accessible blood (which is indeed
>the reason that injections are made into this blood), it would be a
>logical step for any vampire myth which involves the vampires feeding
>on the living, and such stories date back to Roman times and earlier
>(the Slavic vampires on which Dracula is based are derived directly
>from Roman stories of strix, nocturnal vampiric birds).
>Philip Bowles
Vampiric, in terms of jugular biting, or if not, what ?
============================================================ ====================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #147707 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 20:07 |
|
"George Johnson" <matrix29 [at] voyager.net> wrote in message news:11ksoe4486dc366 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vp73f.71684$lq6.20956 [at] fed1read01...
> | "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
> | > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked"
> | > <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> | > [snipped]
> | >>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based
> on facts, logic and Nature.
> | >>And no one yet has been able to disprove anything I have presented here.
> | > Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
> | > have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
> | > them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
> | > flat in the face of logic.
> | > I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
> | > discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
> | > I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
> | I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
> dispute the evidence presented,
> | then respond to the message with the full list of addresses in the
> original message.
> | Of course, if the Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here have
> inimidated you from doing that, | then that is your problem.
> Lying dumbass. You stated that the word "Troll" and its current usage was the result of:
>
> From: "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.battlestar-galactica,rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.startrek,alt.tv. scifi.channel,re
> c.arts.tv,rec.arts.drwho,alt.politics.homosexuality
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:59 AM
> Subject: Re: George Peatty is a troll
>
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L1M2f.67570$lq6.23094 [at] fed1read01...
> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their
> messages)
> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
> Politics
> =============
> WHEN ACTUALLY THE WORD *TROLL* is *OVER 389 YEARS OLD*.
> Lying little worthless dumbass.
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=troll&searchm ode=none
> troll (n.) Look up troll at Dictionary.com
> "ugly dwarf or giant," 1616, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some
> speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and
> derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems
> to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm,
> bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull,
> a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There
> were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician
> or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was
> popularized in Eng. by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the
> Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a
> court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among
> other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in
> hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick."
> Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate
> as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs
> and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.
This goes to show that when attempting to understand the meaning of words in a particular especially new context,
the dictionary definition is often worthless.
This is why they publish new versions of these dictionaries every few years.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147713 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 22:27 |
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Paul" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129219047.18663.4.camel [at] localhost.localdomain...
>> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
>>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off you.
>
>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
>
>Politics
>
oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
-LMB
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147714 ] |
Do, 13 Oktober 2005 23:25 |
|
"Louis M. Brown" <phyphor [at] rocketmail.com> wrote in message news:61htk1hh7uc3ic03iem3riem78qsm3l6ii [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Paul" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129219047.18663.4.camel [at] localhost.localdomain...
>>> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>>>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>>>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>>>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>>>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
>>>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>>> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off you.
>>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
>>Politics
> oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
> Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
> -LMB
Public Relations firms and their hacks and the stooges who they dupe have been active working
on the Usenet, conning the public, for at least that long.
Politics
|
|
|
| NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for the George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$" A [message #147715 ] |
Fr, 14 Oktober 2005 04:33 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:vieqk1lgjckdpib9m7a09qov22vlgcdp65 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:34:23 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote in message
>>>news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based
>>>>>on facts, logic and Nature. And no one yet has been able to disprove
>>>>>anything I have presented here.
>>>> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
>>>> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
>>>> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
>>>> flat in the face of logic.
>>>> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
>>>> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
>>>> I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
>>>I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
>>>dispute the evidence presented, then respond to the message with the full
>>>list of addresses in the original message. Of course, if the Hollywood
>>>Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you from doing
>>>that, then that is your problem.
>> I will reply to in groups where it is appropriate. alt.startrek et
>> all, in other words, groups where bsg is ot, I'm going to leave out of
>> it out of courtesy to people who read those groups but not the bsg
>> groups. Courtesy, not being scared of some phantom group of people that
>> seem to have you terrified.
>
> Every one of the groups I have selected for the addressing on my messages
> is carefully picked and is fully compatible with the content I present.
> As I have mentioned, science fiction TV across the board is under assault
> from Hollywood Homosexuals who believe that the sort of youngsters who
> watch science fiction TV are the most open to 'new ideas' and are thus
> being targeted with the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
You should focus more on animated sf, Easily, since lots of kids watch it.
Considering that the degree of "sodomy" in them is equivalent to that in
BSG (i.e. none at all), I'm sure you'll find plenty of material there over
which you can have all sorts of k00k-fits.
>>>> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over the
>>>> place. Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my reply
>>>> settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from me,
>>>> except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the discussion
>>>> back to where it should be.
>>>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>>>All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the
>>>truth. I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the
>>>truth.
>> Your version of the truth, which is somewhat at odds with what
>> empirical evidence suggests to be the truth.
>
> It is for those who disagree with me to disprove my arguments.
> And there are clearly many homosexuals and Hollywood Homosexual public
> relations hacks here
> who do disagree with me. Why do you think they have counselled each other
> not to engage in such debates and are threatening weak people here not to
> continue debating me or to limit the Newsgroups to which]
> the messages are sent ? Because they think they can defeat my arguments ?
Your arguments have not merely been "defeated", but turned into electronic
toilet paper. You have, in fact, no arguments left which are not already so
holey they can be used to strain spaghetti. Debating you now is akin to
shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish have a greater chance of winning.
This is why you have been nominated for the Custer -- you've been defeated,
whipped, hog-tied, drawn & quartered, hung up by your toenails, and turned
into a scratching post for homeless cats. None of your points have as much
credibility as an obviously coked-up George W. Bush frolicking naked on the
White House lawn with Karl Rove, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, while
bragging in front of the entire W.H. Press Corps about every single GOP
dirty trick in the past five years. You're not merely defeated, you're
trounced and humiliated, and all of it in front of a nice large
international portion of online sf fandom. Now, it is time to hold you up
as an example of mundane k00kery for everyone to ridicule and throw
metaphorical rotting fruits & vegetables at, and you may get a Tar &
Feathers or Golden Killfile nomination later, if anyone feels so inclined.
Or now, even. I don't control AUK...
>>>>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and
>>>>>sourced. Politics
>>>> Yeah, right.
>>>> [snipped]
>>>> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
>>>> concept of threaded discussions?
>>>All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
>>>the truth. Politics
>> Maybe, but it's bad manners. Besides, alot of what you post is not
>> written by you, and is often not correctly attributed. And one
>> wonders if you have permission to repost alot of it from the original
>> sources. But that/s another story. I will thank you to please not
>> crosspost the things I write in the above newsgroups to newsgroups that
>> are not related.
>
> I am not going to limit the Newsgroup range of any of the messages I
> write. You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your
> personal character and courage will allow you to address.
You can post to any non-moderated group you please, as anyone else can. It
has nothing to do with "courage" or "character", and everything to do with
*interest*. Usenet is a medium of entertainment, discussion being a minor
goal.
>> Your rantings about the phantom group aside, there are rules, even in
>> usenet. Rules are what make for an orderly society. For the most
>> part, I try to obey the 'rules of the road' in uisenet...sometimes I
>> blow it, but I try and correct the behavior.
>> And in following the rules, I get accused of being scared of some
>> group that I don't even stipulate the existence of.
>> Man oh Man. What, you can't accuse me of personal attacks, so you go
>> to the 'cant chase you all over...'? You seem to have plenty of time
>> on your hands.
>> Either you want a serious discussion, or you want to rant. I could
>> care less either way....I will out logic you in either case. But,
>> since I'd like to keep those who don't care to see it out of it, I'm
>> limiting it to a.bs-g a, r.a.sf.tv, and alt.politics.homosexuality.
>
> More personal attacks.
> You are free to respond or not to my messages.
> Again, that is a product of your own personal character and courage.
> The only limitations on cross-posting are germaneness to the topic at hand
> and whatever limit of cross-post addresses one's ISP specifies.
> Again, this is the Usenet. The purpose of the Usenet is an exchange of
> ideas and arguments between
> disparate people. If any of the people in these other Newsgroups claims
> to disagree with my statements they should state that disagreement.
> I have no interest in this subject, since what we are talking about is
> really weakness of character
> and lack of courage in people on these Newsgroups. That is not an
> interesting subject to me.
>
> Politics
See, even you "get it", without realising. "That is not an interesting
subject to me." Why should we (tinw) or anyone else give a shit what you
find "interesting"?
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #147716 ] |
Fr, 14 Oktober 2005 04:34 |
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:25:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Louis M. Brown" <phyphor [at] rocketmail.com> wrote in message news:61htk1hh7uc3ic03iem3riem78qsm3l6ii [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Paul" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129219047.18663.4.camel [at] localhost.localdomain...
>>>> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing products
>>>>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
>>>>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
>>>>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
>>>>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting their messages)
>>>>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
>>>> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off you.
>>>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
>>>Politics
>> oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
>> Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
>> -LMB
>
>Public Relations firms and their hacks and the stooges who they dupe have been active working
>on the Usenet, conning the public, for at least that long.
>
>Politics
>
No, they haven't. People who don't agree with your um...theories
aren't working for Hollywood, they simply don't see what you see.
-LMB
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll [message #149938 ] |
Fr, 14 Oktober 2005 01:01 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uiA3f.73300$lq6.55368 [at] fed1read01...
| "Louis M. Brown" <phyphor [at] rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:61htk1hh7uc3ic03iem3riem78qsm3l6ii [at] 4ax.com...
| > On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked"
| > <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
| >>"Paul" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1129219047.18663.4.camel [at] localhost.localdomain...
| >>> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
| >>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
products
| >>>> on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech, which does
| >>>> not represent any organization other than the opinion of the Speaker.
| >>>> This type of speech is the greatest danger to public relations firms
| >>>> who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker and deleting
their messages)
| >>>> on the Usenet like they can do on their own web sites and blogs.
| >>> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy
off you.
| >>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
| >>Politics
| > oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
| > Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
| > -LMB
|
| Public Relations firms and their hacks and the stooges who they dupe have
been active working
| on the Usenet, conning the public, for at least that long.
|
| Politics
Your momma dropped you on your head a lot when you were a baby.
--
Postscript: In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by
President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White
House press corps at the time:
"George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about
Iraq-gate and Iran contra?"
"Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will
chase us down the streets and lynch us."
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for the George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$&quo [message #149939 ] |
Fr, 14 Oktober 2005 15:45 |
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:33:12 GMT, The Secretary of HomInt3rn
<ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0>, wrote:
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:vieqk1lgjckdpib9m7a09qov22vlgcdp65 [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:34:23 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote in message
>>>>news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based
>>>>>>on facts, logic and Nature. And no one yet has been able to disprove
>>>>>>anything I have presented here.
>>>>> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
>>>>> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
>>>>> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
>>>>> flat in the face of logic.
>>>>> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
>>>>> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
>>>>> I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
>>>>I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
>>>>dispute the evidence presented, then respond to the message with the full
>>>>list of addresses in the original message. Of course, if the Hollywood
>>>>Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you from doing
>>>>that, then that is your problem.
>>> I will reply to in groups where it is appropriate. alt.startrek et
>>> all, in other words, groups where bsg is ot, I'm going to leave out of
>>> it out of courtesy to people who read those groups but not the bsg
>>> groups. Courtesy, not being scared of some phantom group of people that
>>> seem to have you terrified.
>>
>> Every one of the groups I have selected for the addressing on my messages
>> is carefully picked and is fully compatible with the content I present.
>> As I have mentioned, science fiction TV across the board is under assault
>> from Hollywood Homosexuals who believe that the sort of youngsters who
>> watch science fiction TV are the most open to 'new ideas' and are thus
>> being targeted with the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
>
>You should focus more on animated sf, Easily, since lots of kids watch it.
>Considering that the degree of "sodomy" in them is equivalent to that in
>BSG (i.e. none at all), I'm sure you'll find plenty of material there over
>which you can have all sorts of k00k-fits.
>
>>>>> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over the
>>>>> place. Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my reply
>>>>> settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from me,
>>>>> except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the discussion
>>>>> back to where it should be.
>>>>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>>>>All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the
>>>>truth. I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the
>>>>truth.
>>> Your version of the truth, which is somewhat at odds with what
>>> empirical evidence suggests to be the truth.
>>
>> It is for those who disagree with me to disprove my arguments.
>> And there are clearly many homosexuals and Hollywood Homosexual public
>> relations hacks here
>> who do disagree with me. Why do you think they have counselled each other
>> not to engage in such debates and are threatening weak people here not to
>> continue debating me or to limit the Newsgroups to which]
>> the messages are sent ? Because they think they can defeat my arguments ?
>
>Your arguments have not merely been "defeated", but turned into electronic
>toilet paper. You have, in fact, no arguments left which are not already so
>holey they can be used to strain spaghetti. Debating you now is akin to
>shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish have a greater chance of winning.
>This is why you have been nominated for the Custer -- you've been defeated,
>whipped, hog-tied, drawn & quartered, hung up by your toenails, and turned
>into a scratching post for homeless cats. None of your points have as much
>credibility as an obviously coked-up George W. Bush frolicking naked on the
>White House lawn with Karl Rove, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, while
>bragging in front of the entire W.H. Press Corps about every single GOP
>dirty trick in the past five years. You're not merely defeated, you're
>trounced and humiliated, and all of it in front of a nice large
>international portion of online sf fandom. Now, it is time to hold you up
>as an example of mundane k00kery for everyone to ridicule and throw
>metaphorical rotting fruits & vegetables at, and you may get a Tar &
>Feathers or Golden Killfile nomination later, if anyone feels so inclined.
>Or now, even. I don't control AUK...
>
>>>>>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and
>>>>>>sourced. Politics
>>>>> Yeah, right.
>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
>>>>> concept of threaded discussions?
>>>>All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
>>>>the truth. Politics
>>> Maybe, but it's bad manners. Besides, alot of what you post is not
>>> written by you, and is often not correctly attributed. And one
>>> wonders if you have permission to repost alot of it from the original
>>> sources. But that/s another story. I will thank you to please not
>>> crosspost the things I write in the above newsgroups to newsgroups that
>>> are not related.
>>
>> I am not going to limit the Newsgroup range of any of the messages I
>> write. You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your
>> personal character and courage will allow you to address.
>
>You can post to any non-moderated group you please, as anyone else can. It
>has nothing to do with "courage" or "character", and everything to do with
>*interest*. Usenet is a medium of entertainment, discussion being a minor
>goal.
>
>>> Your rantings about the phantom group aside, there are rules, even in
>>> usenet. Rules are what make for an orderly society. For the most
>>> part, I try to obey the 'rules of the road' in uisenet...sometimes I
>>> blow it, but I try and correct the behavior.
>>> And in following the rules, I get accused of being scared of some
>>> group that I don't even stipulate the existence of.
>>> Man oh Man. What, you can't accuse me of personal attacks, so you go
>>> to the 'cant chase you all over...'? You seem to have plenty of time
>>> on your hands.
>>> Either you want a serious discussion, or you want to rant. I could
>>> care less either way....I will out logic you in either case. But,
>>> since I'd like to keep those who don't care to see it out of it, I'm
>>> limiting it to a.bs-g a, r.a.sf.tv, and alt.politics.homosexuality.
>>
>> More personal attacks.
>> You are free to respond or not to my messages.
>> Again, that is a product of your own personal character and courage.
>> The only limitations on cross-posting are germaneness to the topic at hand
>> and whatever limit of cross-post addresses one's ISP specifies.
>> Again, this is the Usenet. The purpose of the Usenet is an exchange of
>> ideas and arguments between
>> disparate people. If any of the people in these other Newsgroups claims
>> to disagree with my statements they should state that disagreement.
>> I have no interest in this subject, since what we are talking about is
>> really weakness of character
>> and lack of courage in people on these Newsgroups. That is not an
>> interesting subject to me.
>>
>> Politics
>
>See, even you "get it", without realising. "That is not an interesting
>subject to me." Why should we (tinw) or anyone else give a shit what you
>find "interesting"?
This is the kook who was posting about Battlestar Galactica last week,
right? Oh yeah he's a nutjob alright.
I will gladly second your nomination, although I generally would like
to see a lot more silly victory dancing from a kook for the Custer.
He's still claiming victory none the less.
I think his Homosexual Hollywood conspiracy is the real gem this guy
has to offer. That should be worth an award. I believe we've offered
VVF to be open for conspiracy theories before.
Jade
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #149941 ] |
Fr, 14 Oktober 2005 21:07 |
|
"Paul" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129284878.27861.28.camel [at] localhost.localdomain...
> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 01:35 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>> "homophobe" -- a term used by aggressive homosexuals to describe anyone who disagrees with
>> their homosexual agenda.
> Yawn. You've said that before and are still barking up the wrong tree.
Why do you believe this statement is wrong.
>> > No one is interested in your conspiracy theories. You're argument of
>> > "carefully selected newsgroups" is bullshit and you know it. You
>> > included r.a.drwho as RTD is a well known homosexual. NO ONE CARES.
>> > He is not trying to pervert kids, he doesn't have a "let's gay everyone"
>> > agenda or anything like that. Ask any Dr Who bod and they will have
>> > nothing but praise for him and how he has revitalised a much loved programme.
>> > The same applies elsewhere.
>> Dr. Who is included because several reports have documented that homosexuality is being inculcated
>> to you and your kids by the storyline and script of that new series. Of course, since it is not shown
>> in the US there is no way to see it here.
> How little you know then. There are ways as there is such a thing as
> BitTorrent... Homosexuality is NOT being thrust upon anyone by any
> storylines, but hey, you'd know that from first hand experience. Oh
> wait. You don't as you've not seen them. YAAFM.
Most people who claim on this Newsgroup that there is no Sodomy in BSG, do so knowing that
the audience here is mostly US and thus most people here have watched the series and know that
there definitely is Sodomy in BSG.
Claiming falsely that there is no Sodomy in a series which people here on this Newsgroup cannot yet see
is simply dishonest speech.
>> It is Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies who are the right wing libertarians here.
> Rubbish. You know it as well.
This is fact and there is no quedstion about it. All reports from the crooks in the News Media which characterize
homosexuality or drugs as Left issues are simply dishonest speech, which the clear intent of conning the little guy
out of his little political representation.
>> > No one gives a shit about your right wing, bible bashing, anal retentive
>> > dribblings or your constant claims of personal attacks or that no-one
>> > answers your points. They don't answer them as the points are just so
>> > wrong that to answer them would make the respondent looks as big a fool
>> > as the original poster (you).
>> It is Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies who are the right wing libertarians here.
> Are you unable to come up with something original?
A repetitive question may well elicit a representative answer. The truth is not relative,
as is not morality.
>> > Hollywood doesn't have a big gay agenda. Neither does the BBC, Fox,
>> > Universal or any of the other TV or film companies. What they do have is
>> > an acceptance of the homosexual community as unlike earlier times, they
>> > have been recognised as a significant population of viewers, fans and
>> > people who watch movies, drink Coke, eat McDogburgers and enjoy Star
>> > Trek. If you can't see that, you should see both a shrink and an opthamologist.
>> > Now kindly find an suitable big rock and climb back under it. As I've
>> > said before, the appropriate forum for this sort of shite that you write
>> > is the far right. Be careful there though, even they are not as dumb as
>> > a bag of rocks and will rumble you.
>> Spielberg disagrees and only hires homosexuals nowadays.
> Yeah, right. And the KKK has a black PR guy.
The KKK is definitely an organization which is anti-government, to the point of vigilantism.
As such, they are in the same pack of actors which includes Hollywood Homosexuals and Organized Crime,
who also want to commit their own selfish acts without government interference.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for the George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$&quo [message #149943 ] |
Fr, 14 Oktober 2005 22:40 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:INE3f.175422$oW2.9360 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:vieqk1lgjckdpib9m7a09qov22vlgcdp65 [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:34:23 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote in message
>>>>news:l63pk1hc6oq620bn70cfq359i6n47tlohr [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is based
>>>>>>on facts, logic and Nature. And no one yet has been able to disprove
>>>>>>anything I have presented here.
>>>>> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
>>>>> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
>>>>> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts fall
>>>>> flat in the face of logic.
>>>>> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
>>>>> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only reason
>>>>> I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
>>>>I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
>>>>dispute the evidence presented, then respond to the message with the full
>>>>list of addresses in the original message. Of course, if the Hollywood
>>>>Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you from doing
>>>>that, then that is your problem.
>>> I will reply to in groups where it is appropriate. alt.startrek et
>>> all, in other words, groups where bsg is ot, I'm going to leave out of
>>> it out of courtesy to people who read those groups but not the bsg
>>> groups. Courtesy, not being scared of some phantom group of people that
>>> seem to have you terrified.
>> Every one of the groups I have selected for the addressing on my messages
>> is carefully picked and is fully compatible with the content I present.
>> As I have mentioned, science fiction TV across the board is under assault
>> from Hollywood Homosexuals who believe that the sort of youngsters who
>> watch science fiction TV are the most open to 'new ideas' and are thus
>> being targeted with the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
> You should focus more on animated sf, Easily, since lots of kids watch it.
> Considering that the degree of "sodomy" in them is equivalent to that in
> BSG (i.e. none at all), I'm sure you'll find plenty of material there over
> which you can have all sorts of k00k-fits.
You ahve seen content on science fiction cartoons which is even more explicitly Sodomy
than what is portrayed in BSG ? Which series ?
>>>>> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over the
>>>>> place. Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my reply
>>>>> settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from me,
>>>>> except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the discussion
>>>>> back to where it should be.
>>>>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>>>>All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the
>>>>truth. I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the
>>>>truth.
>>> Your version of the truth, which is somewhat at odds with what
>>> empirical evidence suggests to be the truth.
>> It is for those who disagree with me to disprove my arguments.
>> And there are clearly many homosexuals and Hollywood Homosexual public
>> relations hacks here
>> who do disagree with me. Why do you think they have counselled each other
>> not to engage in such debates and are threatening weak people here not to
>> continue debating me or to limit the Newsgroups to which]
>> the messages are sent ? Because they think they can defeat my arguments ?
> Your arguments have not merely been "defeated", but turned into electronic
> toilet paper. You have, in fact, no arguments left which are not already so
> holey they can be used to strain spaghetti. Debating you now is akin to
> shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish have a greater chance of winning.
> This is why you have been nominated for the Custer -- you've been defeated,
> whipped, hog-tied, drawn & quartered, hung up by your toenails, and turned
> into a scratching post for homeless cats. None of your points have as much
> credibility as an obviously coked-up George W. Bush frolicking naked on the
> White House lawn with Karl Rove, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, while
> bragging in front of the entire W.H. Press Corps about every single GOP
> dirty trick in the past five years. You're not merely defeated, you're
> trounced and humiliated, and all of it in front of a nice large
> international portion of online sf fandom. Now, it is time to hold you up
> as an example of mundane k00kery for everyone to ridicule and throw
> metaphorical rotting fruits & vegetables at, and you may get a Tar &
> Feathers or Golden Killfile nomination later, if anyone feels so inclined.
> Or now, even. I don't control AUK...
You have to disprove my arguments to win.
>>>>>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and
>>>>>>sourced. Politics
>>>>> Yeah, right.
>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
>>>>> concept of threaded discussions?
>>>>All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
>>>>the truth. Politics
>>> Maybe, but it's bad manners. Besides, alot of what you post is not
>>> written by you, and is often not correctly attributed. And one
>>> wonders if you have permission to repost alot of it from the original
>>> sources. But that/s another story. I will thank you to please not
>>> crosspost the things I write in the above newsgroups to newsgroups that
>>> are not related.
>> I am not going to limit the Newsgroup range of any of the messages I
>> write. You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your
>> personal character and courage will allow you to address.
> You can post to any non-moderated group you please, as anyone else can.
> It has nothing to do with "courage" or "character", and everything to do with
> *interest*. Usenet is a medium of entertainment, discussion being a minor goal.
Wrong. The Usenet has discussion as its primary goal. However, Hollywood Homosexuals
and their Organized Crime allies have flooded the Usenet with their hacks who promote
Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution, Pornography.
>>> Your rantings about the phantom group aside, there are rules, even in
>>> usenet. Rules are what make for an orderly society. For the most
>>> part, I try to obey the 'rules of the road' in uisenet...sometimes I
>>> blow it, but I try and correct the behavior.
>>> And in following the rules, I get accused of being scared of some
>>> group that I don't even stipulate the existence of.
>>> Man oh Man. What, you can't accuse me of personal attacks, so you go
>>> to the 'cant chase you all over...'? You seem to have plenty of time
>>> on your hands.
>>> Either you want a serious discussion, or you want to rant. I could
>>> care less either way....I will out logic you in either case. But,
>>> since I'd like to keep those who don't care to see it out of it, I'm
>>> limiting it to a.bs-g a, r.a.sf.tv, and alt.politics.homosexuality.
>> More personal attacks.
>> You are free to respond or not to my messages.
>> Again, that is a product of your own personal character and courage.
>> The only limitations on cross-posting are germaneness to the topic at hand
>> and whatever limit of cross-post addresses one's ISP specifies.
>> Again, this is the Usenet. The purpose of the Usenet is an exchange of
>> ideas and arguments between
>> disparate people. If any of the people in these other Newsgroups claims
>> to disagree with my statements they should state that disagreement.
>> I have no interest in this subject, since what we are talking about is
>> really weakness of character and lack of courage in people on these Newsgroups.
>> That is not an interesting subject to me.
>> Politics
> See, even you "get it", without realising. "That is not an interesting subject to me."
> Why should we (tinw) or anyone else give a shit what you find "interesting"?
It is not a question of "should". I did not pay anyone to respond to or read my messages here, like
the Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks do.
There is clear interest because people do not like being deceived by public media and News media.
That is what people are responding to and while weak character of the outspoken people here causes those
people to claim to disagree, they are largely playing devil's advocate, or are hacks who are mouthing what
they have been paid to state here.
Politics
|
|
|
| NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for Clueless Newbie of the Month Re: George Peatty is a [message #149944 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 05:35 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> "Louis M. Brown" wrote...
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>"Paul" wrote...
>>>> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
>>>>> products on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech,
>>>>> which does not represent any organization other than the opinion of
>>>>> the Speaker. This type of speech is the greatest danger to public
>>>>> relations firms who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker
>>>>> and deleting their messages) on the Usenet like they can do on their
>>>>> own web sites and blogs.
>>>> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off
>>>> you.
>>>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
>>>Politics
>> oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
>> Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
>> -LMB
>
> Public Relations firms and their hacks and the stooges who they dupe have
> been active working on the Usenet, conning the public, for at least that
> long.
Yeah, right. Or maybe the concept has been around on usenet even longer
than...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages
on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt the
discussion or to upset its participants. The word, or its derivative,
"trolling", is also used to describe such messages or the act of posting
them.
Etymology
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late
1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase "trolling for
suckers," itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. The
latter can be compared with trawling, of which it is a near homophone.
The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn
from the "trolls", which are portrayed in Scandinavian folklore, and
children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent on
wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the
"Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the trolls' dislike of outsiders
within its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in
its domain.
Use as pejorative
As a pejorative, the term, "troll", is often used to slander opponents in
heated debates, in a way similar to the use of the term "noob" in online
games. Both the person who identifies himself as a "troll", and the one who
vehemently denies it, will use the term, demonstrating to neutral third
parties that both participants are, in fact, trolls. Accordingly, the view
has arisen in some circles that the plural, "trolls", is a valid term, and
that, as it takes two to troll, it is not valid to refer to anyone in the
singular, i.e. "troll". Others, however, feel that "it only takes a boat to
troll, and the fish has a choice as to whether to bite or not". In other
words, they claim that one person can do it alone. Then again, it must be
noted that for some fish, biting is a conditioned reflex.
Vicious cycles
Various users have different motivations for trolling. A common factor to
most of them is the desire to draw attention to the troll. Inflamatory,
sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other
users into engaging the troll in engaging in a fruitless confrontation. The
more attention the toll's activities draw from users, the more persistent
the troll's behavior in the forum. This gives rise to the often repeated
protocol in internet culture "Do not feed the trolls."
Often, a person will post a sincere message about which they are emotionally
sensitive. Skilful trolls know that an easy way to upset them is to
disingenuously claim that the person is a "troll". On other occasions, a
person may not instantly understand, or fit into the social norms of a
forum where most users are the same. As a result, their acting just
slightly out of the norms (often unintentionally, and for legitimate
reasons) garners the label "troll". It can sometimes be difficult to
distinguish between a user who is merely unfamiliar with the social
protocols of a forum and a user who is intentionally trolling;
unfortunately, many users react agressively on a first impression to a
perceived troll, which sometimes leads disrgruntled new users to
become /legitimate/ trolls.
Troll culture
This culture seems to have gone beyond the vague Scandinavian mythological
identification, and includes some elements of Celtic culture, including a
sort of status for the more effective poets and rhetoricians among them.
The "Wikipedia red faction" was a notable group of this sort, employing
largely Marxist rhetoric. The Anarchopedia similarly employs some anarchist
rhetoric, and seems to actively encourage self-identification and factional
expression among trolls. To a lesser degree, so has consumerium.
The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and
pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the
"anonymous troll" is only beginning. Whether there can be a "culture"
consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common
experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some
do claim it is possible and already occurring.
There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to
exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips,
and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate.
Trolling culture is best observed in trolls, who do not know each other,
working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts
are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it
is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll at work. A
troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend
drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers
(especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can
work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's
discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own.
Research and study: Trolling as identity deception
Pre-history
Prior to DejaNews' archiving of Usenet, accounts of trolling were sketchy,
there being little evidence to sort through. After that time, however, the
huge archives were available for researchers. Perhaps the earliest,
although poorly documented, case is the 1982 - 83 saga of AlexAndJoan from
the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for "Ms. magazine",
documented the incident in 1996 in an article for his publication. Alex (in
real life a very shy 50-odd years old psychiatrist from New York) pretended
to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident,
wheelchair-bound, mute woman, named, "Joan", "in order to better relate to
his female patients". This went on for two years, and "Joan" had become a
hugely detailed character, with an array of emotional relationships. These
began to fall apart, only after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into
an affair with Alex.
"Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated ? and somehow betrayed
? by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a
utopian community of the future, and Alex's experiment proved to us all
that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our innocence, if not
our faith." (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534)
Trolling in the 1990s
One early reference to "troll" found in the Google Usenet archive was by
user "Mark Miller," directed toward the user, "Tad", on February 8, 1990
[1]. However, it is unclear if this instance represents a usage of "troll"
as it is known today, or if it was simply a chance choice of epithet:
"You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here
says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is
that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of
natural resources ? kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just
go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll."
The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling for
newbies," popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group,
alt.folklore.urban. The usage was somewhat different from the current
notion of trolling; it was a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran
users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only a new
user would respond to them earnestly. Others expanded the term to include
the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in
newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor,
rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun, "troll", usually
referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.
Some long-time Usenet users continued to insist on these earlier
definitions, even after the term was applied more generally to inflammatory
actions, previously characterized as "flamebait".
Identity
In serious literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath
(1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups
in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguousness of identity in
a disembodied "virtual community" [2]:
"In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the
body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm
is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is
composed of information rather than matter."
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade
on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played
without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a
legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns;
the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity
deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and
upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group.
Their success at the former depends on how well they ? and the troll ?
understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether
the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs
imposed by the group.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion
on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in
the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized
to trolling ? where the rate of deception is high ? many honestly naïve
questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite
off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is
immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is
unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online
reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[3]
Usage
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as
trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate
contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often
used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad
hominem. Likewise, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a
writer's motives that may be incorrect, and therefore is an example of a
fundamental attribution error. Regardless of the writer's motives,
controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or
outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical
community (where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily
harm by their actions), and epistemic community (based on a mere exchange
of words and ideas). Customs of discourse, or etiquette, originating in
physical communities are often applied naively to online discourse by
newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed online, often
anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and sometimes
inaccurately, labelled as trolls when their content upsets people. Also,
people may be more inclined to use epithets like troll in online public
discussion than they would be in person, because online forums may seem
more impersonal.
When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior, the
word troll economically converts an abstract code of online manners into a
concrete image. Experienced participants in online forums know that the
most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her,
because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts to
that forum ? hence the often-seen warning, "Please do not feed the Troll".
Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage
further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the
reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum
participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential
troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the
Troll" warning in a private message to the answerer (e.g., by email, or to
the answerer's wiki Talk page).
Trolling in different internet media
Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups,
and as the Internet has evolved, so has trolling.
* Usenet ? hierarchies of newsgroups limit trolls' exposure, but
crossposting can overcome this. Some Internet service providers implement
limits on the number of newsgroups a message can be crossposted to. In one
notable example, alt.net, instituted a cross-post limit after the trolls on
the system had become so notorious that Peter da Silva instituted a
campaign for other systems to cease exchanging news with alt.net until they
did something about the problem.
* Mailing lists ? usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted
contributors can quickly be banned.
* SlashCode ? based forums use a rating system so that readers can
moderate a post up or down from its initial rating. Readers can then choose
to ignore posts that others have "modded down." Timing of trolls is
particularly important, since earlier posts are more likely to be read than
later posts. An ideal troll would generate much heated discussion and
posting without further intervention from the troll.
* Wikis ? the flat, asynchronous and open model allows anyone to post
anything; users work to undo negative changes using the built-in reversion
tools, but this requires hundreds of volunteers to monitor large popular
sites. Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often
posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by
challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the
impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a
controversial opinion, or trolling. Sometimes Wikis get Vandalized.
* Weblogs ? in their most common form as a personal soapbox with the
ability for anybody to leave comments, popular weblogs often make effective
springboards for trolls, either as inflammatory comments or provocative
entries. The ease with which weblogs can be linked encourages troll
propagation.
* IRC ? the open nature of most IRC channels on popular networks enables
any potential troll to enter and utilise any of a range of techniques,
ranging from simple crapflooding to subtly irritating remarks which trigger
angry responses. The relative ease of evading bans from channels and
servers and the volatile nature of many IRC users can allow trolls to
perpetuate indefinitely.
* Multiplayer first person shooters ? online gaming attracts a large
number of teenage males, who take advantage of the combative atmosphere and
their general anonymity to disparage other players. See pwn or noob for
more information. Team killing and griefing -- breaking the social rules of
the game to harass other players -- can also be considered similar.
* Online Fantasy Sports ? A troll will infiltrate a free, online league
with multiple teams from different identity accounts and then attempt to
make lopsided trades of players to improve one team. The troll will leave
numerous messages on the league bulletin board from different identities to
give the appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illicit behavior. Players
that object to the obvious complicity are usually showered with insults and
other attempts at evasion.
* Web Forums ? Forums of all kinds will attract trolls. Their behavior
does not differ much from the above examples. There is nearly no forum free
of trolls except with a few exceptions of very small sites and those with
exceptionally strict policies on trolling.
Examples
One-shot trolls
One-shot troll messages are intended to be disruptive, and tend to be very
obvious to ensure that they will receive annoyed replies:
Disruptive trolls
* Off topic messages: "Can anyone help me make a web page?" "No, this is
a music forum."
* Page widening: Filling up fields with large pictures or characters
such as "W" to make previous posts unreadable.
* Offensive media: Include media such as annoying sound files or
disturbing pictures in a message, or linking to shock sites that contain
such media. Often these links are disguised as legitimate links.
* Inflammatory messages: "You are an idiot for including this type of
message in your list."
* Deliberately revealing the ending of a recent popular movie or book,
such as the latest Harry Potter novel, as a spoiler.
* Bumping an older discussion, or rehashing a highly controversial past
topic, particularly in smaller online communities.
* Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order
to disturb or irritate them in a conversation.
Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and to
absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
* Messages containing an obvious flaw or error: "I think 2001: A Space
Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
* Asking for help with an implausable task or problem "How do I season
my Crock Pot? I don't want everything cooked in it to taste the same."
* Intentionally naive messages: "Should I put olive oil in my pasta
water, when cooking pasta?"
* Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed
around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will
become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead continue the
thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as
"feeding" the troll.
* A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved
mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not
always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically
interesting.
* Politically contentious messages: "I think George W. Bush is the
best/worst President ever."
* Posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
* Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.
* Off-topic complaints about personal life, or threats of suicide:
sometimes, this is the "cry for help" troll.
* Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by
individuals: "I don't believe that all of you really believe that, you are
teaming against me."
* Any combination of the above: For example, a troll will combine
inflammatory statements with poor grammar and AIM-speak (which is also
known as "netspeak"). "lmfao you fuctard u are so weak minded and
predictablei thought i wan iggied i play ya like a card"
Other examples
Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup,
though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like those
who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged internet trolls sometimes
resort to innuendoes or misdirections in the pursuit of their objectives.
A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting
content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus
of the group or forum; for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet
lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum (or vice
versa), or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET
group alt.fan.dragons.
The "sock puppet" troll often enters a forum using several different
identities. As postings from one identity attract increasingly critical
comment from other forum members, the troll enters the forum using a second
identity in support of the first. The troll may even use postings from the
second identity to criticise those from the first in order to develop
credibility on the forum.
Cross-posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted
article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or
opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance,
an anti-fast food flame bait might be cross-posted to healthy eating
groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally
off-topic artificial intelligence newsgroup.
An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American
students" USENET thread which had 3,000-odd follow-ups. A new USENET
newsgroup, "alt.genius.bill-palmer", was created by Igor Chudov for the
purpose of creating an outlet for discussing a controversial USENET
personality, Bill Palmer, himself an alleged USENET troll who managed to
make his personality the center of all discussions. A swirl of messages
attempting to disprove his alleged status as genius, cross-posted to hell
and back, made "a.g.b-p", the most popular new "alt.*" newsgroup of the
year. Its creator was nominated for the "Troll of the Year 1996" award.
Motivation
Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies
or "culture jammers", challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of
forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink ? the
belief system that prevails in their absence. "Wikipedia itself" has a
"project to counter systemic bias".
Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify
themselves as such, out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls
may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. Most discussion of what
motivates internet trolls comes from other internet users who claim to have
observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to
describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls
might be unreliable, since they may, in fact, be intending to stir
controversy, rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon.
Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular
internet project, and references to an Internet user as a troll might not
be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result,
identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative. Still,
several basic goals have been attributed to internet trolls, according to
the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking.
Proposed motivations for trolling:
* Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of
the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and
rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious
consequences. This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some
discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities
and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some
scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering
experiments using troll methods. However, few believe that troll
organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals, with
no particular method or thesis, cannot be described as scientists. They
might however be engaged in research.
* Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by
inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
* Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over
statements from total strangers is entertaining.
* Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate
disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and
school ? although it is generally impossible to know whether this is just
simply part of the troll. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive,
confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of tough love guidance in
an anonymous forum.
* Self-proclaimed trolls, and their defenders, suggest that trolling is
a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of viewing
power-relations.
* Setting oneself a challenge, simply to see if one can do it, and be
successful: One member of an online forum, for example, joins under an
unrecognizable identifying name to see if the other members of the forum
can be fooled and, if so, for how long.
* Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the
idea that a troll can spend one minute of time posting a troll, causing
multiple other people to waste several minutes of their time, catalytically
affecting others. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they can waste others'
time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.
* Domino effect: Related to amusement, but in a more specific fashion,
it starts large chain reactions in response to one's initial post.
Achieving a disproportionately large response to a small action is the
general theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes
"missing" (but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number
of people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed
disappearance.
* Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to
make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves sock
puppeteering or duals, where the bad cop is a sock-puppet troll) or,
alternatively, play the role of the devil's advocate to strengthen the
opposing convictions (with which he or she actually agrees).
* Test the integrity of a system against social attacks or other forms
of misbehavior: For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to
see whether any action is taken by the site administrators.
* Overcome feelings of inferiority or powerlessness by getting the
experience of controlling an environment.
* Self-promotion.
* Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as shocking
people out of entrenched conformism.
* Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves as
trolls, but misunderstood humorists or political commentators.
* Satisfaction gained from personal attacks.
* Harassment: following a person ? who has been targetted for harassment
in one forum, but who has chosen to escape being victimized by moving on ?
and trolling the forum as a means of making that new "home" an
uncomfortable place for that person to be online.
* Lowering signal to noise ratio: On Slashdot, moderation points, that
could be used to moderate up alternative posts, are wasted on moderating
down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. At certain thresholds,
this lowers the quality of comments.
* Anonymously testing an alternate persona.
* Emptying a forum: this is usually only feasible if the forum is small.
It is difficult to gauge the motivations of trolls, since most of the
justifications offered by alleged trolls for their behavior are nothing
more than ruses concocted to continue whatever mischief they imagine
themselves to have started. This is unfortunate because, as the above list
supposes, there are legitimate reasons for engaging in the sort of actions
for which trolling is known. Still, etiquette is simple and straightforward
enough that most people can advance the aims professed by self-exculpatory
trolls, without actually resorting to these methods. Since there is a wide
spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being
benevolent and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as trolls in
the negative sense is often rash.
Some users of internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters", or
"trollbaiters". They willingly enter into conflicts when trolls emerge.
Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be
ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce", following a troll, they will
drive the thread off-topic.
Resolutions and alternatives
In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to
ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives
discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll
with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers
reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost.
Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often
conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the
trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have
preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all.
Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in
internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A
person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an
antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of
the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may
therefore perpetuate trolling.
Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and
describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental,
non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated
by "ignorers", and neither of these emotions produce positive results for
the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by
the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or
become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory
until they get a response.
Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of great
regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service
provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.
Usefulness of trolling
A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful
function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions
thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no".
Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried
as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the
forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical
right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel
more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate
in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against
this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable
in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls
claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying
opinion against them.
Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which
depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is
usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad
troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will
create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists
to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.
Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the
validity of what is read both on the internet, and from other sources.
Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an
informed and considered opinion, and may get as much visibility. It has
also been argued that shock jocks, and newspaper columnists, often track
public opinions by trolling. John C. Dvorak, and Slashdot, have often been
cited as examples.
Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as
trolls, the consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the troll and
trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim
that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose. Some trolls
have been known to try to troll threads into deletion, serving as a form of
negative reinforcement to "newbies", but also helping at the same time to
reduce the clutter of spam threads on a large message board. In many cases,
trolling can lead a forum administrator or moderator into implementing
features to the site to prevent trolling. Although this could be regarded
as improving the website itself, it remains that the features would not
have been needed, had the trolls not been there.
Behaviorism
Precise definitions of "troll" are difficult because such definitions rely
on assumptions about internal motivation, which cannot be conclusively
proven without reverse-engineering the details of the human mind. Some
behaviors, such as "name-calling" are obvious candidates for a "troll"
classification, but often, what is considered "trolling" is more subtle and
disputable. (Name-calling, perhaps, would fall under the classification of
"flamer" instead.)
Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should
focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce
behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The
idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the
motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then
perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call
this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.
An alternative view
While trolls and trolling are, by and large, considered a negative and
undesirable addition to a message board, some claim a belief that trolling
is inherently bad, and can have damaging consequences. The use of the word,
"terrorist", is often cited as an example of stepping over the line.
However, anything that is labeled with the word, "terrorist", rallies a
feeling of an "us versus them" mentality, which are helpful both in
ostracizing trollish behavior, and in strengthening the 'need' for
anti-troll tactics, thereby consolidating the webmaster's support.
In most cases, the latter is an unexpected bonus in dealing with trolls.
However, a pertinent question arises: "What if this is the only goal, and
that the webmaster merely wishes to silence a variety of criticisms,
ranging from poor moderation and too much advertising, to restrictions on
discussion topics?" Playing the 'troll' card may therefore be the
webmaster's weapon of choice.
The polarizing effect that the issue of trolling has on online communities
has lead to several schisms. Wordforge, for example, was created as an
alternative to Trekbbs, touting itself as a general discussion board,
designed as a place where rules are limited so that the 'troll card' cannot
again be played in a self-serving manner. Such boards are very much in the
minority, as compared to a usual board where "trolling = bad", an accurate
and useful descriptor.
Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being called thus
by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary
type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one for acting as a
dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators or moderators
as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate. Many
debates, between those with and without administrative or legal powers,
seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the internet in
particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban
users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior
political or moral judgement.
As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the
label can turn it around to create group identity, and the power to
collectively resist. Individual outsiders, using the label on someone,
become targets for a collective response. Insiders, however, may use the
label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for Clueless Newbie of theMonth Re: George Peatty is [message #149946 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 08:36 |
|
<superheropornsquad.com>
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý| wrote:
> I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>
>>"Louis M. Brown" wrote...
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Paul" wrote...
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
>>>>>>products on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech,
>>>>>>which does not represent any organization other than the opinion of
>>>>>>the Speaker. This type of speech is the greatest danger to public
>>>>>>relations firms who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker
>>>>>>and deleting their messages) on the Usenet like they can do on their
>>>>>>own web sites and blogs.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off
>>>>>you.
>>>>
>>>>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
>>>>Politics
>>>
>>>oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
>>>Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
>>>-LMB
>>
>>Public Relations firms and their hacks and the stooges who they dupe have
>>been active working on the Usenet, conning the public, for at least that
>>long.
>
>
> Yeah, right. Or maybe the concept has been around on usenet even longer
> than...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>
*puts hands on hips, hunches forward and with a displeasing frown goes*:
Hey, what's MY picture doing there?! I never gave them permission to use
my biography let alone a picture of me! >:-I
> Internet troll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
> In internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages
> on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt the
> discussion or to upset its participants. The word, or its derivative,
> "trolling", is also used to describe such messages or the act of posting
> them.
>
> Etymology
>
> The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late
> 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase "trolling for
> suckers," itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. The
> latter can be compared with trawling, of which it is a near homophone.
>
> The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn
> from the "trolls", which are portrayed in Scandinavian folklore, and
> children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent on
> wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the
> "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the trolls' dislike of outsiders
> within its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in
> its domain.
>
> Use as pejorative
>
> As a pejorative, the term, "troll", is often used to slander opponents in
> heated debates, in a way similar to the use of the term "noob" in online
> games. Both the person who identifies himself as a "troll", and the one who
> vehemently denies it, will use the term, demonstrating to neutral third
> parties that both participants are, in fact, trolls. Accordingly, the view
> has arisen in some circles that the plural, "trolls", is a valid term, and
> that, as it takes two to troll, it is not valid to refer to anyone in the
> singular, i.e. "troll". Others, however, feel that "it only takes a boat to
> troll, and the fish has a choice as to whether to bite or not". In other
> words, they claim that one person can do it alone. Then again, it must be
> noted that for some fish, biting is a conditioned reflex.
>
> Vicious cycles
>
> Various users have different motivations for trolling. A common factor to
> most of them is the desire to draw attention to the troll. Inflamatory,
> sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other
> users into engaging the troll in engaging in a fruitless confrontation. The
> more attention the toll's activities draw from users, the more persistent
> the troll's behavior in the forum. This gives rise to the often repeated
> protocol in internet culture "Do not feed the trolls."
>
> Often, a person will post a sincere message about which they are emotionally
> sensitive. Skilful trolls know that an easy way to upset them is to
> disingenuously claim that the person is a "troll". On other occasions, a
> person may not instantly understand, or fit into the social norms of a
> forum where most users are the same. As a result, their acting just
> slightly out of the norms (often unintentionally, and for legitimate
> reasons) garners the label "troll". It can sometimes be difficult to
> distinguish between a user who is merely unfamiliar with the social
> protocols of a forum and a user who is intentionally trolling;
> unfortunately, many users react agressively on a first impression to a
> perceived troll, which sometimes leads disrgruntled new users to
> become /legitimate/ trolls.
>
> Troll culture
>
> This culture seems to have gone beyond the vague Scandinavian mythological
> identification, and includes some elements of Celtic culture, including a
> sort of status for the more effective poets and rhetoricians among them.
> The "Wikipedia red faction" was a notable group of this sort, employing
> largely Marxist rhetoric. The Anarchopedia similarly employs some anarchist
> rhetoric, and seems to actively encourage self-identification and factional
> expression among trolls. To a lesser degree, so has consumerium.
>
> The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and
> pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the
> "anonymous troll" is only beginning. Whether there can be a "culture"
> consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common
> experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some
> do claim it is possible and already occurring.
>
> There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to
> exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips,
> and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate.
>
> Trolling culture is best observed in trolls, who do not know each other,
> working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts
> are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it
> is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll at work. A
> troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend
> drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers
> (especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can
> work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's
> discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own.
>
> Research and study: Trolling as identity deception
>
> Pre-history
>
> Prior to DejaNews' archiving of Usenet, accounts of trolling were sketchy,
> there being little evidence to sort through. After that time, however, the
> huge archives were available for researchers. Perhaps the earliest,
> although poorly documented, case is the 1982 - 83 saga of AlexAndJoan from
> the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for "Ms. magazine",
> documented the incident in 1996 in an article for his publication. Alex (in
> real life a very shy 50-odd years old psychiatrist from New York) pretended
> to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident,
> wheelchair-bound, mute woman, named, "Joan", "in order to better relate to
> his female patients". This went on for two years, and "Joan" had become a
> hugely detailed character, with an array of emotional relationships. These
> began to fall apart, only after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into
> an affair with Alex.
>
> "Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated ? and somehow betrayed
> ? by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a
> utopian community of the future, and Alex's experiment proved to us all
> that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our innocence, if not
> our faith." (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534)
>
> Trolling in the 1990s
>
> One early reference to "troll" found in the Google Usenet archive was by
> user "Mark Miller," directed toward the user, "Tad", on February 8, 1990
> [1]. However, it is unclear if this instance represents a usage of "troll"
> as it is known today, or if it was simply a chance choice of epithet:
>
> "You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here
> says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is
> that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of
> natural resources ? kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just
> go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll."
>
> The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling for
> newbies," popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group,
> alt.folklore.urban. The usage was somewhat different from the current
> notion of trolling; it was a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran
> users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only a new
> user would respond to them earnestly. Others expanded the term to include
> the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in
> newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor,
> rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun, "troll", usually
> referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.
>
> Some long-time Usenet users continued to insist on these earlier
> definitions, even after the term was applied more generally to inflammatory
> actions, previously characterized as "flamebait".
>
> Identity
>
> In serious literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath
> (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups
> in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguousness of identity in
> a disembodied "virtual community" [2]:
>
> "In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the
> body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm
> is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is
> composed of information rather than matter."
>
> Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade
> on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
>
> "Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played
> without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a
> legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns;
> the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity
> deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and
> upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group.
> Their success at the former depends on how well they ? and the troll ?
> understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether
> the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs
> imposed by the group.
>
> Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion
> on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in
> the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized
> to trolling ? where the rate of deception is high ? many honestly naïve
> questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite
> off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is
> immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is
> unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online
> reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[3]
>
> Usage
>
> The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as
> trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate
> contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often
> used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad
> hominem. Likewise, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a
> writer's motives that may be incorrect, and therefore is an example of a
> fundamental attribution error. Regardless of the writer's motives,
> controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or
> outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical
> community (where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily
> harm by their actions), and epistemic community (based on a mere exchange
> of words and ideas). Customs of discourse, or etiquette, originating in
> physical communities are often applied naively to online discourse by
> newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed online, often
> anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and sometimes
> inaccurately, labelled as trolls when their content upsets people. Also,
> people may be more inclined to use epithets like troll in online public
> discussion than they would be in person, because online forums may seem
> more impersonal.
>
> When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior, the
> word troll economically converts an abstract code of online manners into a
> concrete image. Experienced participants in online forums know that the
> most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her,
> because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts to
> that forum ? hence the often-seen warning, "Please do not feed the Troll".
> Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage
> further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the
> reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum
> participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential
> troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the
> Troll" warning in a private message to the answerer (e.g., by email, or to
> the answerer's wiki Talk page).
>
> Trolling in different internet media
>
> Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups,
> and as the Internet has evolved, so has trolling.
>
> * Usenet ? hierarchies of newsgroups limit trolls' exposure, but
> crossposting can overcome this. Some Internet service providers implement
> limits on the number of newsgroups a message can be crossposted to. In one
> notable example, alt.net, instituted a cross-post limit after the trolls on
> the system had become so notorious that Peter da Silva instituted a
> campaign for other systems to cease exchanging news with alt.net until they
> did something about the problem.
> * Mailing lists ? usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted
> contributors can quickly be banned.
> * SlashCode ? based forums use a rating system so that readers can
> moderate a post up or down from its initial rating. Readers can then choose
> to ignore posts that others have "modded down." Timing of trolls is
> particularly important, since earlier posts are more likely to be read than
> later posts. An ideal troll would generate much heated discussion and
> posting without further intervention from the troll.
> * Wikis ? the flat, asynchronous and open model allows anyone to post
> anything; users work to undo negative changes using the built-in reversion
> tools, but this requires hundreds of volunteers to monitor large popular
> sites. Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often
> posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by
> challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the
> impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a
> controversial opinion, or trolling. Sometimes Wikis get Vandalized.
> * Weblogs ? in their most common form as a personal soapbox with the
> ability for anybody to leave comments, popular weblogs often make effective
> springboards for trolls, either as inflammatory comments or provocative
> entries. The ease with which weblogs can be linked encourages troll
> propagation.
> * IRC ? the open nature of most IRC channels on popular networks enables
> any potential troll to enter and utilise any of a range of techniques,
> ranging from simple crapflooding to subtly irritating remarks which trigger
> angry responses. The relative ease of evading bans from channels and
> servers and the volatile nature of many IRC users can allow trolls to
> perpetuate indefinitely.
> * Multiplayer first person shooters ? online gaming attracts a large
> number of teenage males, who take advantage of the combative atmosphere and
> their general anonymity to disparage other players. See pwn or noob for
> more information. Team killing and griefing -- breaking the social rules of
> the game to harass other players -- can also be considered similar.
> * Online Fantasy Sports ? A troll will infiltrate a free, online league
> with multiple teams from different identity accounts and then attempt to
> make lopsided trades of players to improve one team. The troll will leave
> numerous messages on the league bulletin board from different identities to
> give the appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illicit behavior. Players
> that object to the obvious complicity are usually showered with insults and
> other attempts at evasion.
> * Web Forums ? Forums of all kinds will attract trolls. Their behavior
> does not differ much from the above examples. There is nearly no forum free
> of trolls except with a few exceptions of very small sites and those with
> exceptionally strict policies on trolling.
>
> Examples
>
> One-shot trolls
>
> One-shot troll messages are intended to be disruptive, and tend to be very
> obvious to ensure that they will receive annoyed replies:
>
> Disruptive trolls
>
> * Off topic messages: "Can anyone help me make a web page?" "No, this is
> a music forum."
> * Page widening: Filling up fields with large pictures or characters
> such as "W" to make previous posts unreadable.
> * Offensive media: Include media such as annoying sound files or
> disturbing pictures in a message, or linking to shock sites that contain
> such media. Often these links are disguised as legitimate links.
> * Inflammatory messages: "You are an idiot for including this type of
> message in your list."
> * Deliberately revealing the ending of a recent popular movie or book,
> such as the latest Harry Potter novel, as a spoiler.
> * Bumping an older discussion, or rehashing a highly controversial past
> topic, particularly in smaller online communities.
> * Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order
> to disturb or irritate them in a conversation.
>
> Attention-seeking trolls
>
> This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and to
> absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
>
> * Messages containing an obvious flaw or error: "I think 2001: A Space
> Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
> * Asking for help with an implausable task or problem "How do I season
> my Crock Pot? I don't want everything cooked in it to taste the same."
> * Intentionally naive messages: "Should I put olive oil in my pasta
> water, when cooking pasta?"
> * Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed
> around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will
> become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead continue the
> thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as
> "feeding" the troll.
> * A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved
> mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not
> always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically
> interesting.
> * Politically contentious messages: "I think George W. Bush is the
> best/worst President ever."
> * Posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
> * Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.
> * Off-topic complaints about personal life, or threats of suicide:
> sometimes, this is the "cry for help" troll.
> * Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by
> individuals: "I don't believe that all of you really believe that, you are
> teaming against me."
> * Any combination of the above: For example, a troll will combine
> inflammatory statements with poor grammar and AIM-speak (which is also
> known as "netspeak"). "lmfao you fuctard u are so weak minded and
> predictablei thought i wan iggied i play ya like a card"
>
> Other examples
>
> Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup,
> though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like those
> who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged internet trolls sometimes
> resort to innuendoes or misdirections in the pursuit of their objectives.
>
> A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting
> content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus
> of the group or forum; for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet
> lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum (or vice
> versa), or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET
> group alt.fan.dragons.
>
> The "sock puppet" troll often enters a forum using several different
> identities. As postings from one identity attract increasingly critical
> comment from other forum members, the troll enters the forum using a second
> identity in support of the first. The troll may even use postings from the
> second identity to criticise those from the first in order to develop
> credibility on the forum.
>
> Cross-posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted
> article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or
> opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance,
> an anti-fast food flame bait might be cross-posted to healthy eating
> groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally
> off-topic artificial intelligence newsgroup.
>
> An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American
> students" USENET thread which had 3,000-odd follow-ups. A new USENET
> newsgroup, "alt.genius.bill-palmer", was created by Igor Chudov for the
> purpose of creating an outlet for discussing a controversial USENET
> personality, Bill Palmer, himself an alleged USENET troll who managed to
> make his personality the center of all discussions. A swirl of messages
> attempting to disprove his alleged status as genius, cross-posted to hell
> and back, made "a.g.b-p", the most popular new "alt.*" newsgroup of the
> year. Its creator was nominated for the "Troll of the Year 1996" award.
>
> Motivation
>
> Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies
> or "culture jammers", challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of
> forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink ? the
> belief system that prevails in their absence. "Wikipedia itself" has a
> "project to counter systemic bias".
>
> Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify
> themselves as such, out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls
> may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. Most discussion of what
> motivates internet trolls comes from other internet users who claim to have
> observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to
> describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls
> might be unreliable, since they may, in fact, be intending to stir
> controversy, rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon.
> Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular
> internet project, and references to an Internet user as a troll might not
> be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result,
> identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative. Still,
> several basic goals have been attributed to internet trolls, according to
> the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking.
>
> Proposed motivations for trolling:
>
> * Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of
> the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and
> rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious
> consequences. This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some
> discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities
> and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some
> scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering
> experiments using troll methods. However, few believe that troll
> organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals, with
> no particular method or thesis, cannot be described as scientists. They
> might however be engaged in research.
> * Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by
> inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
> * Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over
> statements from total strangers is entertaining.
> * Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate
> disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and
> school ? although it is generally impossible to know whether this is just
> simply part of the troll. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive,
> confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of tough love guidance in
> an anonymous forum.
> * Self-proclaimed trolls, and their defenders, suggest that trolling is
> a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of viewing
> power-relations.
> * Setting oneself a challenge, simply to see if one can do it, and be
> successful: One member of an online forum, for example, joins under an
> unrecognizable identifying name to see if the other members of the forum
> can be fooled and, if so, for how long.
> * Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the
> idea that a troll can spend one minute of time posting a troll, causing
> multiple other people to waste several minutes of their time, catalytically
> affecting others. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they can waste others'
> time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.
> * Domino effect: Related to amusement, but in a more specific fashion,
> it starts large chain reactions in response to one's initial post.
> Achieving a disproportionately large response to a small action is the
> general theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes
> "missing" (but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number
> of people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed
> disappearance.
> * Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to
> make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves sock
> puppeteering or duals, where the bad cop is a sock-puppet troll) or,
> alternatively, play the role of the devil's advocate to strengthen the
> opposing convictions (with which he or she actually agrees).
> * Test the integrity of a system against social attacks or other forms
> of misbehavior: For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to
> see whether any action is taken by the site administrators.
> * Overcome feelings of inferiority or powerlessness by getting the
> experience of controlling an environment.
> * Self-promotion.
> * Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as shocking
> people out of entrenched conformism.
> * Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves as
> trolls, but misunderstood humorists or political commentators.
> * Satisfaction gained from personal attacks.
> * Harassment: following a person ? who has been targetted for harassment
> in one forum, but who has chosen to escape being victimized by moving on ?
> and trolling the forum as a means of making that new "home" an
> uncomfortable place for that person to be online.
> * Lowering signal to noise ratio: On Slashdot, moderation points, that
> could be used to moderate up alternative posts, are wasted on moderating
> down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. At certain thresholds,
> this lowers the quality of comments.
> * Anonymously testing an alternate persona.
> * Emptying a forum: this is usually only feasible if the forum is small.
>
> It is difficult to gauge the motivations of trolls, since most of the
> justifications offered by alleged trolls for their behavior are nothing
> more than ruses concocted to continue whatever mischief they imagine
> themselves to have started. This is unfortunate because, as the above list
> supposes, there are legitimate reasons for engaging in the sort of actions
> for which trolling is known. Still, etiquette is simple and straightforward
> enough that most people can advance the aims professed by self-exculpatory
> trolls, without actually resorting to these methods. Since there is a wide
> spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being
> benevolent and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as trolls in
> the negative sense is often rash.
>
> Some users of internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters", or
> "trollbaiters". They willingly enter into conflicts when trolls emerge.
> Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be
> ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce", following a troll, they will
> drive the thread off-topic.
>
> Resolutions and alternatives
>
> In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to
> ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives
> discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll
> with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers
> reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost.
> Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often
> conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the
> trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have
> preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all.
>
> Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in
> internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A
> person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an
> antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of
> the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may
> therefore perpetuate trolling.
>
> Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and
> describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental,
> non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated
> by "ignorers", and neither of these emotions produce positive results for
> the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by
> the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or
> become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory
> until they get a response.
>
> Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of great
> regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service
> provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.
>
> Usefulness of trolling
>
> A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful
> function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions
> thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no".
>
> Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried
> as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the
> forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical
> right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel
> more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate
> in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against
> this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable
> in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls
> claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying
> opinion against them.
>
> Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which
> depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is
> usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad
> troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will
> create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists
> to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.
>
> Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the
> validity of what is read both on the internet, and from other sources.
> Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an
> informed and considered opinion, and may get as much visibility. It has
> also been argued that shock jocks, and newspaper columnists, often track
> public opinions by trolling. John C. Dvorak, and Slashdot, have often been
> cited as examples.
>
> Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as
> trolls, the consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the troll and
> trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim
> that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose. Some trolls
> have been known to try to troll threads into deletion, serving as a form of
> negative reinforcement to "newbies", but also helping at the same time to
> reduce the clutter of spam threads on a large message board. In many cases,
> trolling can lead a forum administrator or moderator into implementing
> features to the site to prevent trolling. Although this could be regarded
> as improving the website itself, it remains that the features would not
> have been needed, had the trolls not been there.
>
> Behaviorism
>
> Precise definitions of "troll" are difficult because such definitions rely
> on assumptions about internal motivation, which cannot be conclusively
> proven without reverse-engineering the details of the human mind. Some
> behaviors, such as "name-calling" are obvious candidates for a "troll"
> classification, but often, what is considered "trolling" is more subtle and
> disputable. (Name-calling, perhaps, would fall under the classification of
> "flamer" instead.)
>
> Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should
> focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce
> behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The
> idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the
> motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then
> perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call
> this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.
>
> An alternative view
>
> While trolls and trolling are, by and large, considered a negative and
> undesirable addition to a message board, some claim a belief that trolling
> is inherently bad, and can have damaging consequences. The use of the word,
> "terrorist", is often cited as an example of stepping over the line.
> However, anything that is labeled with the word, "terrorist", rallies a
> feeling of an "us versus them" mentality, which are helpful both in
> ostracizing trollish behavior, and in strengthening the 'need' for
> anti-troll tactics, thereby consolidating the webmaster's support.
>
> In most cases, the latter is an unexpected bonus in dealing with trolls.
> However, a pertinent question arises: "What if this is the only goal, and
> that the webmaster merely wishes to silence a variety of criticisms,
> ranging from poor moderation and too much advertising, to restrictions on
> discussion topics?" Playing the 'troll' card may therefore be the
> webmaster's weapon of choice.
>
> The polarizing effect that the issue of trolling has on online communities
> has lead to several schisms. Wordforge, for example, was created as an
> alternative to Trekbbs, touting itself as a general discussion board,
> designed as a place where rules are limited so that the 'troll card' cannot
> again be played in a self-serving manner. Such boards are very much in the
> minority, as compared to a usual board where "trolling = bad", an accurate
> and useful descriptor.
>
> Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being called thus
> by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary
> type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one for acting as a
> dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators or moderators
> as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate. Many
> debates, between those with and without administrative or legal powers,
> seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the internet in
> particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban
> users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior
> political or moral judgement.
>
> As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the
> label can turn it around to create group identity, and the power to
> collectively resist. Individual outsiders, using the label on someone,
> become targets for a collective response. Insiders, however, may use the
> label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way.
>
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for Clueless Newbie of the Month Re: George Peatty i [message #149948 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 11:27 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:YN_3f.189247$oW2.111930 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "Louis M. Brown" wrote...
>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>"Paul" wrote...
>>>>> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 01:14 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>> "Troll" -- a term invented by public relations firms representing
>>>>>> products on the Usenet to describe uncontrolled, unpaid for speech,
>>>>>> which does not represent any organization other than the opinion of
>>>>>> the Speaker. This type of speech is the greatest danger to public
>>>>>> relations firms who cannot control that speech (by banning the speaker
>>>>>> and deleting their messages) on the Usenet like they can do on their
>>>>>> own web sites and blogs.
>>>>> And you still can't get it right. Oh well. I didn't expect accuracy off you.
>>>>What is inaccurate about this definition of the PR word "troll" ?
>>>>Politics
>>> oh, only EVERYTHING. It just contradicts what has been established on
>>> Usenet for only the past 10 years or more,
>>> -LMB
>> Public Relations firms and their hacks and the stooges who they dupe have
>> been active working on the Usenet, conning the public, for at least that long.
> Yeah, right. Or maybe the concept has been around on usenet even longer than...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
The problem with this Wiki piece is that the Usenet users who use the term "troll" are mainly
part of an army of public relations hacks who work here on the Usenet every day praising and supporting
a particular product. The Wiki writers are either unaware of the existence of these people or the writers
are mostly composed of these PR hacks.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as perceptive as they should be and many people may well go years
talking to someone on public forums like this, who shows up every day and praises a the product in question
and whenever anyone appears who attacks the product organizes their troops to call the critic a "troll"
and organizes campaigns to send false complaints to their ISP (Internet Service Provider),
and yet not realize and be too weak and lonely to want to realize that these people are PR hacks who are paid
dirty cash money to work here on the Usenet are involved in a deceitful, tortious and perhaps criminal enterprise.
The Wiki piece should be rewritten by someone who understands that public relations hacks
work pervasively on the Usenet.
And the most pervasive group of PR people on the Usenet are Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks.
If Usenet ISP officials do not want "flamewars" then they should ban anyone who:
1) insults other people,
2) calls other people epithets (including "troll"),
3) threatens other people in any way.
That is how you dissolve flame wars. Simple. I never do any of those things.
My discussions are strictly on the issues, and in this case specifically the issues which BSG poses,
by bring Sodomy into the house of you and your kids, in a campaign to sell your Son on the idea
that Sodomy is good for him and he should try some of it, as portrayed on science fiction TV.
Politics
Politics
============================================================ ===
> Internet troll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
> In internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages
> on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt the
> discussion or to upset its participants. The word, or its derivative,
> "trolling", is also used to describe such messages or the act of posting
> them.
>
> Etymology
>
> The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late
> 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase "trolling for
> suckers," itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. The
> latter can be compared with trawling, of which it is a near homophone.
>
> The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn
> from the "trolls", which are portrayed in Scandinavian folklore, and
> children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent on
> wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the
> "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the trolls' dislike of outsiders
> within its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in
> its domain.
>
> Use as pejorative
>
> As a pejorative, the term, "troll", is often used to slander opponents in
> heated debates, in a way similar to the use of the term "noob" in online
> games. Both the person who identifies himself as a "troll", and the one who
> vehemently denies it, will use the term, demonstrating to neutral third
> parties that both participants are, in fact, trolls. Accordingly, the view
> has arisen in some circles that the plural, "trolls", is a valid term, and
> that, as it takes two to troll, it is not valid to refer to anyone in the
> singular, i.e. "troll". Others, however, feel that "it only takes a boat to
> troll, and the fish has a choice as to whether to bite or not". In other
> words, they claim that one person can do it alone. Then again, it must be
> noted that for some fish, biting is a conditioned reflex.
>
> Vicious cycles
>
> Various users have different motivations for trolling. A common factor to
> most of them is the desire to draw attention to the troll. Inflamatory,
> sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other
> users into engaging the troll in engaging in a fruitless confrontation. The
> more attention the toll's activities draw from users, the more persistent
> the troll's behavior in the forum. This gives rise to the often repeated
> protocol in internet culture "Do not feed the trolls."
>
> Often, a person will post a sincere message about which they are emotionally
> sensitive. Skilful trolls know that an easy way to upset them is to
> disingenuously claim that the person is a "troll". On other occasions, a
> person may not instantly understand, or fit into the social norms of a
> forum where most users are the same. As a result, their acting just
> slightly out of the norms (often unintentionally, and for legitimate
> reasons) garners the label "troll". It can sometimes be difficult to
> distinguish between a user who is merely unfamiliar with the social
> protocols of a forum and a user who is intentionally trolling;
> unfortunately, many users react agressively on a first impression to a
> perceived troll, which sometimes leads disrgruntled new users to
> become /legitimate/ trolls.
>
> Troll culture
>
> This culture seems to have gone beyond the vague Scandinavian mythological
> identification, and includes some elements of Celtic culture, including a
> sort of status for the more effective poets and rhetoricians among them.
> The "Wikipedia red faction" was a notable group of this sort, employing
> largely Marxist rhetoric. The Anarchopedia similarly employs some anarchist
> rhetoric, and seems to actively encourage self-identification and factional
> expression among trolls. To a lesser degree, so has consumerium.
>
> The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and
> pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the
> "anonymous troll" is only beginning. Whether there can be a "culture"
> consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common
> experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some
> do claim it is possible and already occurring.
>
> There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to
> exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips,
> and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate.
>
> Trolling culture is best observed in trolls, who do not know each other,
> working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts
> are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it
> is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll at work. A
> troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend
> drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers
> (especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can
> work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's
> discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own.
>
> Research and study: Trolling as identity deception
>
> Pre-history
>
> Prior to DejaNews' archiving of Usenet, accounts of trolling were sketchy,
> there being little evidence to sort through. After that time, however, the
> huge archives were available for researchers. Perhaps the earliest,
> although poorly documented, case is the 1982 - 83 saga of AlexAndJoan from
> the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for "Ms. magazine",
> documented the incident in 1996 in an article for his publication. Alex (in
> real life a very shy 50-odd years old psychiatrist from New York) pretended
> to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident,
> wheelchair-bound, mute woman, named, "Joan", "in order to better relate to
> his female patients". This went on for two years, and "Joan" had become a
> hugely detailed character, with an array of emotional relationships. These
> began to fall apart, only after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into
> an affair with Alex.
>
> "Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated ? and somehow betrayed
> ? by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a
> utopian community of the future, and Alex's experiment proved to us all
> that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our innocence, if not
> our faith." (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534)
>
> Trolling in the 1990s
>
> One early reference to "troll" found in the Google Usenet archive was by
> user "Mark Miller," directed toward the user, "Tad", on February 8, 1990
> [1]. However, it is unclear if this instance represents a usage of "troll"
> as it is known today, or if it was simply a chance choice of epithet:
>
> "You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here
> says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is
> that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of
> natural resources ? kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just
> go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll."
>
> The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling for
> newbies," popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group,
> alt.folklore.urban. The usage was somewhat different from the current
> notion of trolling; it was a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran
> users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only a new
> user would respond to them earnestly. Others expanded the term to include
> the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in
> newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor,
> rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun, "troll", usually
> referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.
>
> Some long-time Usenet users continued to insist on these earlier
> definitions, even after the term was applied more generally to inflammatory
> actions, previously characterized as "flamebait".
>
> Identity
>
> In serious literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath
> (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups
> in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguousness of identity in
> a disembodied "virtual community" [2]:
>
> "In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the
> body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm
> is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is
> composed of information rather than matter."
>
> Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade
> on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
>
> "Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played
> without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a
> legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns;
> the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity
> deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and
> upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group.
> Their success at the former depends on how well they ? and the troll ?
> understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether
> the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs
> imposed by the group.
>
> Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion
> on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in
> the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized
> to trolling ? where the rate of deception is high ? many honestly naïve
> questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite
> off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is
> immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is
> unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online
> reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[3]
>
> Usage
>
> The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as
> trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate
> contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often
> used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad
> hominem. Likewise, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a
> writer's motives that may be incorrect, and therefore is an example of a
> fundamental attribution error. Regardless of the writer's motives,
> controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or
> outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical
> community (where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily
> harm by their actions), and epistemic community (based on a mere exchange
> of words and ideas). Customs of discourse, or etiquette, originating in
> physical communities are often applied naively to online discourse by
> newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed online, often
> anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and sometimes
> inaccurately, labelled as trolls when their content upsets people. Also,
> people may be more inclined to use epithets like troll in online public
> discussion than they would be in person, because online forums may seem
> more impersonal.
>
> When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior, the
> word troll economically converts an abstract code of online manners into a
> concrete image. Experienced participants in online forums know that the
> most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her,
> because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts to
> that forum ? hence the often-seen warning, "Please do not feed the Troll".
> Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage
> further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the
> reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum
> participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential
> troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the
> Troll" warning in a private message to the answerer (e.g., by email, or to
> the answerer's wiki Talk page).
>
> Trolling in different internet media
>
> Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups,
> and as the Internet has evolved, so has trolling.
>
> * Usenet ? hierarchies of newsgroups limit trolls' exposure, but
> crossposting can overcome this. Some Internet service providers implement
> limits on the number of newsgroups a message can be crossposted to. In one
> notable example, alt.net, instituted a cross-post limit after the trolls on
> the system had become so notorious that Peter da Silva instituted a
> campaign for other systems to cease exchanging news with alt.net until they
> did something about the problem.
> * Mailing lists ? usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted
> contributors can quickly be banned.
> * SlashCode ? based forums use a rating system so that readers can
> moderate a post up or down from its initial rating. Readers can then choose
> to ignore posts that others have "modded down." Timing of trolls is
> particularly important, since earlier posts are more likely to be read than
> later posts. An ideal troll would generate much heated discussion and
> posting without further intervention from the troll.
> * Wikis ? the flat, asynchronous and open model allows anyone to post
> anything; users work to undo negative changes using the built-in reversion
> tools, but this requires hundreds of volunteers to monitor large popular
> sites. Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often
> posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by
> challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the
> impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a
> controversial opinion, or trolling. Sometimes Wikis get Vandalized.
> * Weblogs ? in their most common form as a personal soapbox with the
> ability for anybody to leave comments, popular weblogs often make effective
> springboards for trolls, either as inflammatory comments or provocative
> entries. The ease with which weblogs can be linked encourages troll
> propagation.
> * IRC ? the open nature of most IRC channels on popular networks enables
> any potential troll to enter and utilise any of a range of techniques,
> ranging from simple crapflooding to subtly irritating remarks which trigger
> angry responses. The relative ease of evading bans from channels and
> servers and the volatile nature of many IRC users can allow trolls to
> perpetuate indefinitely.
> * Multiplayer first person shooters ? online gaming attracts a large
> number of teenage males, who take advantage of the combative atmosphere and
> their general anonymity to disparage other players. See pwn or noob for
> more information. Team killing and griefing -- breaking the social rules of
> the game to harass other players -- can also be considered similar.
> * Online Fantasy Sports ? A troll will infiltrate a free, online league
> with multiple teams from different identity accounts and then attempt to
> make lopsided trades of players to improve one team. The troll will leave
> numerous messages on the league bulletin board from different identities to
> give the appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illicit behavior. Players
> that object to the obvious complicity are usually showered with insults and
> other attempts at evasion.
> * Web Forums ? Forums of all kinds will attract trolls. Their behavior
> does not differ much from the above examples. There is nearly no forum free
> of trolls except with a few exceptions of very small sites and those with
> exceptionally strict policies on trolling.
>
> Examples
>
> One-shot trolls
>
> One-shot troll messages are intended to be disruptive, and tend to be very
> obvious to ensure that they will receive annoyed replies:
>
> Disruptive trolls
>
> * Off topic messages: "Can anyone help me make a web page?" "No, this is
> a music forum."
> * Page widening: Filling up fields with large pictures or characters
> such as "W" to make previous posts unreadable.
> * Offensive media: Include media such as annoying sound files or
> disturbing pictures in a message, or linking to shock sites that contain
> such media. Often these links are disguised as legitimate links.
> * Inflammatory messages: "You are an idiot for including this type of
> message in your list."
> * Deliberately revealing the ending of a recent popular movie or book,
> such as the latest Harry Potter novel, as a spoiler.
> * Bumping an older discussion, or rehashing a highly controversial past
> topic, particularly in smaller online communities.
> * Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order
> to disturb or irritate them in a conversation.
>
> Attention-seeking trolls
>
> This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and to
> absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
>
> * Messages containing an obvious flaw or error: "I think 2001: A Space
> Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
> * Asking for help with an implausable task or problem "How do I season
> my Crock Pot? I don't want everything cooked in it to taste the same."
> * Intentionally naive messages: "Should I put olive oil in my pasta
> water, when cooking pasta?"
> * Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed
> around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will
> become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead continue the
> thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as
> "feeding" the troll.
> * A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved
> mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not
> always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically
> interesting.
> * Politically contentious messages: "I think George W. Bush is the
> best/worst President ever."
> * Posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
> * Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.
> * Off-topic complaints about personal life, or threats of suicide:
> sometimes, this is the "cry for help" troll.
> * Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by
> individuals: "I don't believe that all of you really believe that, you are
> teaming against me."
> * Any combination of the above: For example, a troll will combine
> inflammatory statements with poor grammar and AIM-speak (which is also
> known as "netspeak"). "lmfao you fuctard u are so weak minded and
> predictablei thought i wan iggied i play ya like a card"
>
> Other examples
>
> Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup,
> though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like those
> who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged internet trolls sometimes
> resort to innuendoes or misdirections in the pursuit of their objectives.
>
> A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting
> content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus
> of the group or forum; for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet
> lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum (or vice
> versa), or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET
> group alt.fan.dragons.
>
> The "sock puppet" troll often enters a forum using several different
> identities. As postings from one identity attract increasingly critical
> comment from other forum members, the troll enters the forum using a second
> identity in support of the first. The troll may even use postings from the
> second identity to criticise those from the first in order to develop
> credibility on the forum.
>
> Cross-posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted
> article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or
> opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance,
> an anti-fast food flame bait might be cross-posted to healthy eating
> groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally
> off-topic artificial intelligence newsgroup.
>
> An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American
> students" USENET thread which had 3,000-odd follow-ups. A new USENET
> newsgroup, "alt.genius.bill-palmer", was created by Igor Chudov for the
> purpose of creating an outlet for discussing a controversial USENET
> personality, Bill Palmer, himself an alleged USENET troll who managed to
> make his personality the center of all discussions. A swirl of messages
> attempting to disprove his alleged status as genius, cross-posted to hell
> and back, made "a.g.b-p", the most popular new "alt.*" newsgroup of the
> year. Its creator was nominated for the "Troll of the Year 1996" award.
>
> Motivation
>
> Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies
> or "culture jammers", challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of
> forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink ? the
> belief system that prevails in their absence. "Wikipedia itself" has a
> "project to counter systemic bias".
>
> Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify
> themselves as such, out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls
> may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. Most discussion of what
> motivates internet trolls comes from other internet users who claim to have
> observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to
> describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls
> might be unreliable, since they may, in fact, be intending to stir
> controversy, rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon.
> Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular
> internet project, and references to an Internet user as a troll might not
> be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result,
> identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative. Still,
> several basic goals have been attributed to internet trolls, according to
> the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking.
>
> Proposed motivations for trolling:
>
> * Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of
> the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and
> rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious
> consequences. This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some
> discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities
> and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some
> scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering
> experiments using troll methods. However, few believe that troll
> organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals, with
> no particular method or thesis, cannot be described as scientists. They
> might however be engaged in research.
> * Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by
> inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
> * Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over
> statements from total strangers is entertaining.
> * Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate
> disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and
> school ? although it is generally impossible to know whether this is just
> simply part of the troll. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive,
> confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of tough love guidance in
> an anonymous forum.
> * Self-proclaimed trolls, and their defenders, suggest that trolling is
> a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of viewing
> power-relations.
> * Setting oneself a challenge, simply to see if one can do it, and be
> successful: One member of an online forum, for example, joins under an
> unrecognizable identifying name to see if the other members of the forum
> can be fooled and, if so, for how long.
> * Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the
> idea that a troll can spend one minute of time posting a troll, causing
> multiple other people to waste several minutes of their time, catalytically
> affecting others. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they can waste others'
> time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.
> * Domino effect: Related to amusement, but in a more specific fashion,
> it starts large chain reactions in response to one's initial post.
> Achieving a disproportionately large response to a small action is the
> general theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes
> "missing" (but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number
> of people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed
> disappearance.
> * Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to
> make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves sock
> puppeteering or duals, where the bad cop is a sock-puppet troll) or,
> alternatively, play the role of the devil's advocate to strengthen the
> opposing convictions (with which he or she actually agrees).
> * Test the integrity of a system against social attacks or other forms
> of misbehavior: For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to
> see whether any action is taken by the site administrators.
> * Overcome feelings of inferiority or powerlessness by getting the
> experience of controlling an environment.
> * Self-promotion.
> * Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as shocking
> people out of entrenched conformism.
> * Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves as
> trolls, but misunderstood humorists or political commentators.
> * Satisfaction gained from personal attacks.
> * Harassment: following a person ? who has been targetted for harassment
> in one forum, but who has chosen to escape being victimized by moving on ?
> and trolling the forum as a means of making that new "home" an
> uncomfortable place for that person to be online.
> * Lowering signal to noise ratio: On Slashdot, moderation points, that
> could be used to moderate up alternative posts, are wasted on moderating
> down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. At certain thresholds,
> this lowers the quality of comments.
> * Anonymously testing an alternate persona.
> * Emptying a forum: this is usually only feasible if the forum is small.
>
> It is difficult to gauge the motivations of trolls, since most of the
> justifications offered by alleged trolls for their behavior are nothing
> more than ruses concocted to continue whatever mischief they imagine
> themselves to have started. This is unfortunate because, as the above list
> supposes, there are legitimate reasons for engaging in the sort of actions
> for which trolling is known. Still, etiquette is simple and straightforward
> enough that most people can advance the aims professed by self-exculpatory
> trolls, without actually resorting to these methods. Since there is a wide
> spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being
> benevolent and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as trolls in
> the negative sense is often rash.
>
> Some users of internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters", or
> "trollbaiters". They willingly enter into conflicts when trolls emerge.
> Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be
> ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce", following a troll, they will
> drive the thread off-topic.
>
> Resolutions and alternatives
>
> In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to
> ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives
> discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll
> with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers
> reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost.
> Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often
> conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the
> trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have
> preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all.
>
> Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in
> internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A
> person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an
> antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of
> the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may
> therefore perpetuate trolling.
>
> Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and
> describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental,
> non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated
> by "ignorers", and neither of these emotions produce positive results for
> the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by
> the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or
> become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory
> until they get a response.
>
> Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of great
> regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service
> provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.
>
> Usefulness of trolling
>
> A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful
> function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions
> thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no".
>
> Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried
> as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the
> forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical
> right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel
> more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate
> in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against
> this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable
> in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls
> claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying
> opinion against them.
>
> Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which
> depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is
> usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad
> troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will
> create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists
> to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.
>
> Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the
> validity of what is read both on the internet, and from other sources.
> Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an
> informed and considered opinion, and may get as much visibility. It has
> also been argued that shock jocks, and newspaper columnists, often track
> public opinions by trolling. John C. Dvorak, and Slashdot, have often been
> cited as examples.
>
> Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as
> trolls, the consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the troll and
> trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim
> that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose. Some trolls
> have been known to try to troll threads into deletion, serving as a form of
> negative reinforcement to "newbies", but also helping at the same time to
> reduce the clutter of spam threads on a large message board. In many cases,
> trolling can lead a forum administrator or moderator into implementing
> features to the site to prevent trolling. Although this could be regarded
> as improving the website itself, it remains that the features would not
> have been needed, had the trolls not been there.
>
> Behaviorism
>
> Precise definitions of "troll" are difficult because such definitions rely
> on assumptions about internal motivation, which cannot be conclusively
> proven without reverse-engineering the details of the human mind. Some
> behaviors, such as "name-calling" are obvious candidates for a "troll"
> classification, but often, what is considered "trolling" is more subtle and
> disputable. (Name-calling, perhaps, would fall under the classification of
> "flamer" instead.)
>
> Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should
> focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce
> behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The
> idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the
> motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then
> perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call
> this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.
>
> An alternative view
>
> While trolls and trolling are, by and large, considered a negative and
> undesirable addition to a message board, some claim a belief that trolling
> is inherently bad, and can have damaging consequences. The use of the word,
> "terrorist", is often cited as an example of stepping over the line.
> However, anything that is labeled with the word, "terrorist", rallies a
> feeling of an "us versus them" mentality, which are helpful both in
> ostracizing trollish behavior, and in strengthening the 'need' for
> anti-troll tactics, thereby consolidating the webmaster's support.
>
> In most cases, the latter is an unexpected bonus in dealing with trolls.
> However, a pertinent question arises: "What if this is the only goal, and
> that the webmaster merely wishes to silence a variety of criticisms,
> ranging from poor moderation and too much advertising, to restrictions on
> discussion topics?" Playing the 'troll' card may therefore be the
> webmaster's weapon of choice.
>
> The polarizing effect that the issue of trolling has on online communities
> has lead to several schisms. Wordforge, for example, was created as an
> alternative to Trekbbs, touting itself as a general discussion board,
> designed as a place where rules are limited so that the 'troll card' cannot
> again be played in a self-serving manner. Such boards are very much in the
> minority, as compared to a usual board where "trolling = bad", an accurate
> and useful descriptor.
>
> Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being called thus
> by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary
> type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one for acting as a
> dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators or moderators
> as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate. Many
> debates, between those with and without administrative or legal powers,
> seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the internet in
> particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban
> users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior
> political or moral judgement.
>
> As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the
> label can turn it around to create group identity, and the power to
> collectively resist. Individual outsiders, using the label on someone,
> become targets for a collective response. Insiders, however, may use the
> label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way.
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________ _______________
> Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
> Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
> "Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
> Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
> "The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
> Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
> "It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for Clueless Newbie of the Month Re: George Peatty i [message #149949 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 12:33 |
|
Taylor wrote:
> >
>
> *puts hands on hips, hunches forward and with a displeasing frown goes*:
> Hey, what's MY picture doing there?!
there was some more last night, so watch today, and i bet there will be
some tonite too
mk5000
" Should you go first and I remain to walk the road alone
I'll live in mem'ry's garden dear with happy days we've known
In spring I'll wait for roses red when fades the lilacs bloom
And in early fall when brown leaves fall I'll catch a glimpse of
you"--hank williams, beyond the sunset
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for Clueless Newbie of the Month Re: George Peatty i [message #149951 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 13:44 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #149952 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 17:31 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> Paul Johnson wrote...
>> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 01:35 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>> "homophobe" -- a term used by aggressive homosexuals to describe anyone
>>> who disagrees with their homosexual agenda.
>> Yawn. You've said that before and are still barking up the wrong tree.
>
> Why do you believe this statement is wrong.
Because it's a typical claim made by homophobes to divert attention away
from their homophobia.
>>> > No one is interested in your conspiracy theories. You're argument of
>>> > "carefully selected newsgroups" is bullshit and you know it. You
>>> > included r.a.drwho as RTD is a well known homosexual. NO ONE CARES.
>>> > He is not trying to pervert kids, he doesn't have a "let's gay
>>> > everyone" agenda or anything like that. Ask any Dr Who bod and they
>>> > will have nothing but praise for him and how he has revitalised a much
>>> > loved programme. The same applies elsewhere.
>>> Dr. Who is included because several reports have documented that
>>> homosexuality is being inculcated
>>> to you and your kids by the storyline and script of that new series. Of
>>> course, since it is not shown in the US there is no way to see it here.
>> How little you know then. There are ways as there is such a thing as
>> BitTorrent... Homosexuality is NOT being thrust upon anyone by any
>> storylines, but hey, you'd know that from first hand experience. Oh
>> wait. You don't as you've not seen them. YAAFM.
>
> Most people who claim on this Newsgroup that there is no Sodomy in BSG, do
> so knowing that the audience here is mostly US and thus most people here
> have watched the series and know that there definitely is Sodomy in BSG.
> Claiming falsely that there is no Sodomy in a series which people here on
> this Newsgroup cannot yet see is simply dishonest speech.
*This* newsgroup? I'm in APH...
>>> It is Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies who are the
>>> right wing libertarians here.
>> Rubbish. You know it as well.
>
> This is fact and there is no quedstion about it. All reports from the
> crooks in the News Media which characterize homosexuality or drugs as Left
> issues are simply dishonest speech, which the clear intent of conning the
> little guy out of his little political representation.
Yeah, right, heard it all before.
>>> > No one gives a shit about your right wing, bible bashing, anal
>>> > retentive dribblings or your constant claims of personal attacks or
>>> > that no-one answers your points. They don't answer them as the points
>>> > are just so wrong that to answer them would make the respondent looks
>>> > as big a fool as the original poster (you).
>>> It is Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies who are the
>>> right wing libertarians here.
>> Are you unable to come up with something original?
>
> A repetitive question may well elicit a representative answer. The truth
> is not relative, as is not morality.
I guess, where you're living, it's still the 19th Century, right?
>>> > Hollywood doesn't have a big gay agenda. Neither does the BBC, Fox,
>>> > Universal or any of the other TV or film companies. What they do have
>>> > is an acceptance of the homosexual community as unlike earlier times,
>>> > they have been recognised as a significant population of viewers, fans
>>> > and people who watch movies, drink Coke, eat McDogburgers and enjoy
>>> > Star Trek. If you can't see that, you should see both a shrink and an
>>> > opthamologist. Now kindly find an suitable big rock and climb back
>>> > under it. As I've said before, the appropriate forum for this sort of
>>> > shite that you write is the far right. Be careful there though, even
>>> > they are not as dumb as a bag of rocks and will rumble you.
>>> Spielberg disagrees and only hires homosexuals nowadays.
>> Yeah, right. And the KKK has a black PR guy.
>
> The KKK is definitely an organization which is anti-government, to the
> point of vigilantism. As such, they are in the same pack of actors which
> includes Hollywood Homosexuals and Organized Crime, who also want to
> commit their own selfish acts without government interference.
K00ksign! But you're still boring, so you only get the second-rate awards.
Very sad, when people who play Illuminati confuse their levels of
reality...
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for the George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$&quo [message #149953 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 18:28 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
> "The Secretary of HomInt3rn" wrote...
>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote...
>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:34:23 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is
>>>>>>>based on facts, logic and Nature. And no one yet has been able to
>>>>>>>disprove anything I have presented here.
>>>>>> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
>>>>>> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
>>>>>> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts
>>>>>> fall flat in the face of logic.
>>>>>> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
>>>>>> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only
>>>>>> reason I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
>>>>>I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
>>>>>dispute the evidence presented, then respond to the message with the
>>>>>full list of addresses in the original message. Of course, if the
>>>>>Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you
>>>>>from doing that, then that is your problem.
>>>> I will reply to in groups where it is appropriate. alt.startrek et
>>>> all, in other words, groups where bsg is ot, I'm going to leave out of
>>>> it out of courtesy to people who read those groups but not the bsg
>>>> groups. Courtesy, not being scared of some phantom group of people that
>>>> seem to have you terrified.
>>> Every one of the groups I have selected for the addressing on my
>>> messages is carefully picked and is fully compatible with the content I
>>> present. As I have mentioned, science fiction TV across the board is
>>> under assault from Hollywood Homosexuals who believe that the sort of
>>> youngsters who watch science fiction TV are the most open to 'new ideas'
>>> and are thus being targeted with the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
>> You should focus more on animated sf, Easily, since lots of kids watch
>> it. Considering that the degree of "sodomy" in them is equivalent to that
>> in BSG (i.e. none at all), I'm sure you'll find plenty of material there
>> over which you can have all sorts of k00k-fits.
>
> You ahve seen content on science fiction cartoons which is even more
> explicitly Sodomy than what is portrayed in BSG ? Which series ?
Considering how much "explicit" sodomy there is in BSG, practically all of
them.
>>>>>> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over
>>>>>> the place. Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my
>>>>>> reply settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from
>>>>>> me, except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the
>>>>>> discussion back to where it should be.
>>>>>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>>>>>All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the
>>>>>truth. I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the
>>>>>truth.
>>>> Your version of the truth, which is somewhat at odds with what
>>>> empirical evidence suggests to be the truth.
>>> It is for those who disagree with me to disprove my arguments.
>>> And there are clearly many homosexuals and Hollywood Homosexual public
>>> relations hacks here
>>> who do disagree with me. Why do you think they have counselled each
>>> other not to engage in such debates and are threatening weak people here
>>> not to continue debating me or to limit the Newsgroups to which]
>>> the messages are sent ? Because they think they can defeat my arguments
>>> ?
>
>> Your arguments have not merely been "defeated", but turned into
>> electronic toilet paper. You have, in fact, no arguments left which are
>> not already so holey they can be used to strain spaghetti. Debating you
>> now is akin to shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish have a greater
>> chance of winning. This is why you have been nominated for the Custer --
>> you've been defeated, whipped, hog-tied, drawn & quartered, hung up by
>> your toenails, and turned into a scratching post for homeless cats. None
>> of your points have as much credibility as an obviously coked-up George
>> W. Bush frolicking naked on the White House lawn with Karl Rove, Saddam
>> Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, while bragging in front of the entire W.H.
>> Press Corps about every single GOP dirty trick in the past five years.
>> You're not merely defeated, you're trounced and humiliated, and all of it
>> in front of a nice large international portion of online sf fandom. Now,
>> it is time to hold you up as an example of mundane k00kery for everyone
>> to ridicule and throw metaphorical rotting fruits & vegetables at, and
>> you may get a Tar & Feathers or Golden Killfile nomination later, if
>> anyone feels so inclined. Or now, even. I don't control AUK...
>
> You have to disprove my arguments to win.
I have /dissected/ your arguments, never mind "disproven" them. I've taken
them apart and used them to line my cat's litterbox, stomped them into dust
and blown them away in a light breeze, used them for Gatling gun target
practice and swept the remains into a small garbage can -- there's so
little left of your arguments for me to disprove that I've stopped out of
sheer empathy for you, as well as to let other people have some fun. You
have demonstrated all the intellect of a three-days-dead crack whore in
response to my deconstruction of your position, however, so don't imagine
that I'm here to do anything but showcase your paranoia for the benefit of
those who need to determine your suitability as a nominee for the Custer
award and the Kooki Info Minister office.
>>>>>>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and
>>>>>>>sourced. Politics
>>>>>> Yeah, right.
>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
>>>>>> concept of threaded discussions?
>>>>>All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
>>>>>the truth. Politics
>>>> Maybe, but it's bad manners. Besides, alot of what you post is not
>>>> written by you, and is often not correctly attributed. And one
>>>> wonders if you have permission to repost alot of it from the original
>>>> sources. But that/s another story. I will thank you to please not
>>>> crosspost the things I write in the above newsgroups to newsgroups that
>>>> are not related.
>>> I am not going to limit the Newsgroup range of any of the messages I
>>> write. You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your
>>> personal character and courage will allow you to address.
>> You can post to any non-moderated group you please, as anyone else can.
>> It has nothing to do with "courage" or "character", and everything to do
>> with *interest*. Usenet is a medium of entertainment, discussion being a
>> minor goal.
>
> Wrong. The Usenet has discussion as its primary goal.
No. Flaming or trolling is not "discussion". It can be entertaining,
however, which is why I read so many flamewars.
> However, Hollywood
> Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies have flooded the Usenet with
> their hacks who promote Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution,
> Pornography.
Just keep on troweling out the k00ksigns, you may win that office yet.
>>>> Your rantings about the phantom group aside, there are rules, even in
>>>> usenet. Rules are what make for an orderly society. For the most
>>>> part, I try to obey the 'rules of the road' in uisenet...sometimes I
>>>> blow it, but I try and correct the behavior.
>>>> And in following the rules, I get accused of being scared of some
>>>> group that I don't even stipulate the existence of.
>>>> Man oh Man. What, you can't accuse me of personal attacks, so you go
>>>> to the 'cant chase you all over...'? You seem to have plenty of time
>>>> on your hands.
>>>> Either you want a serious discussion, or you want to rant. I could
>>>> care less either way....I will out logic you in either case. But,
>>>> since I'd like to keep those who don't care to see it out of it, I'm
>>>> limiting it to a.bs-g a, r.a.sf.tv, and alt.politics.homosexuality.
>>> More personal attacks.
>>> You are free to respond or not to my messages.
>>> Again, that is a product of your own personal character and courage.
>>> The only limitations on cross-posting are germaneness to the topic at
>>> hand and whatever limit of cross-post addresses one's ISP specifies.
>>> Again, this is the Usenet. The purpose of the Usenet is an exchange of
>>> ideas and arguments between
>>> disparate people. If any of the people in these other Newsgroups claims
>>> to disagree with my statements they should state that disagreement.
>>> I have no interest in this subject, since what we are talking about is
>>> really weakness of character and lack of courage in people on these
>>> Newsgroups. That is not an interesting subject to me.
>>> Politics
>> See, even you "get it", without realising. "That is not an interesting
>> subject to me." Why should we (tinw) or anyone else give a shit what you
>> find "interesting"?
>
> It is not a question of "should". I did not pay anyone to respond to or
> read my messages here, like the Hollywood Homosexuals public relations
> hacks do. There is clear interest because people do not like being
> deceived by public media and News media. That is what people are
> responding to and while weak character of the outspoken people here causes
> those people to claim to disagree, they are largely playing devil's
> advocate, or are hacks who are mouthing what they have been paid to state
> here.
I've seen one, maybe two -- *maybe* two -- responses to your homophobia that
weren't entirely antagonistic (anything from Wild/Widdle Bill Taylor
doesn't count), several others that were not overly unfriendly to your
anti-Zionism, maybe a few more that were not totally disgusted by your
anti-Semitism, and possibly a small bunch of others that had some points of
agreement with you regarding Iraq. Beyond that, I've seen nothing in any of
these x-posted threads which indicated you had any real support (Oh, but
the lurkers support you in email, right?) from anyone who wasn't a known
k00k or troll. Face it, people post to usenet for entertainment, not
discussion; discussion is what happens for brief periods when people take
breaks from flamewars.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for the George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$&quo [message #149954 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 22:34 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:A6a4f.208256$tl2.38692 [at] pd7tw3no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> "The Secretary of HomInt3rn" wrote...
>>>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
>>> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>>>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote...
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:34:23 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>>>"Kevin Kitching" wrote...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:46:25 -0700, "John Shocked" wrote:
>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>>As is obvious, I take nothing as gospel. All that I say here is
>>>>>>>>based on facts, logic and Nature. And no one yet has been able to
>>>>>>>>disprove anything I have presented here.
>>>>>>> Bullshit. There are half a dozen posts on Rec.Arts.tv.sf. that you
>>>>>>> have failed to reply to...either you just haven't bothered to read
>>>>>>> them because they aren't posted all over the place, or your posts
>>>>>>> fall flat in the face of logic.
>>>>>>> I have stopped x-posting them, for the most part, because the
>>>>>>> discussion belongs in r.a.sf.tv, not all over usenet. The only
>>>>>>> reason I x-posted this reply is make sure you can't say 'what posts?'
>>>>>>I have no time to go searching around for responses. If you wish to
>>>>>>dispute the evidence presented, then respond to the message with the
>>>>>>full list of addresses in the original message. Of course, if the
>>>>>>Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks here have inimidated you
>>>>>>from doing that, then that is your problem.
>>>>> I will reply to in groups where it is appropriate. alt.startrek et
>>>>> all, in other words, groups where bsg is ot, I'm going to leave out of
>>>>> it out of courtesy to people who read those groups but not the bsg
>>>>> groups. Courtesy, not being scared of some phantom group of people that
>>>>> seem to have you terrified.
>>>> Every one of the groups I have selected for the addressing on my
>>>> messages is carefully picked and is fully compatible with the content I
>>>> present. As I have mentioned, science fiction TV across the board is
>>>> under assault from Hollywood Homosexuals who believe that the sort of
>>>> youngsters who watch science fiction TV are the most open to 'new ideas'
>>>> and are thus being targeted with the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
>>> You should focus more on animated sf, Easily, since lots of kids watch
>>> it. Considering that the degree of "sodomy" in them is equivalent to that
>>> in BSG (i.e. none at all), I'm sure you'll find plenty of material there
>>> over which you can have all sorts of k00k-fits.
>> You ahve seen content on science fiction cartoons which is even more
>> explicitly Sodomy than what is portrayed in BSG ? Which series ?
> Considering how much "explicit" sodomy there is in BSG, practically all of them.
I never said there was explicit Sodomy in BSG. However, to a perceptive mind,
the portrayal in BSG is quite explicit.
>>>>>>> I will thank you kindly not to x-post any replies you have all over
>>>>>>> the place. Again, to those in the viewing audience - I have reset my
>>>>>>> reply settings in Agent, so you shouldn't see alot of x-posting from
>>>>>>> me, except in cases like this, where I'm trying to draw the
>>>>>>> discussion back to where it should be.
>>>>>>> And I have NOT x-posted this to the trek and other groups.
>>>>>>All of the patrons of those Newsgroups have the right to receive the
>>>>>>truth. I will continue to see to it that they all have access to the truth.
>>>>> Your version of the truth, which is somewhat at odds with what
>>>>> empirical evidence suggests to be the truth.
>>>> It is for those who disagree with me to disprove my arguments.
>>>> And there are clearly many homosexuals and Hollywood Homosexual public
>>>> relations hacks here
>>>> who do disagree with me. Why do you think they have counselled each
>>>> other not to engage in such debates and are threatening weak people here
>>>> not to continue debating me or to limit the Newsgroups to which]
>>>> the messages are sent ? Because they think they can defeat my arguments ?
>>> Your arguments have not merely been "defeated", but turned into
>>> electronic toilet paper. You have, in fact, no arguments left which are
>>> not already so holey they can be used to strain spaghetti. Debating you
>>> now is akin to shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish have a greater
>>> chance of winning. This is why you have been nominated for the Custer --
>>> you've been defeated, whipped, hog-tied, drawn & quartered, hung up by
>>> your toenails, and turned into a scratching post for homeless cats. None
>>> of your points have as much credibility as an obviously coked-up George
>>> W. Bush frolicking naked on the White House lawn with Karl Rove, Saddam
>>> Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, while bragging in front of the entire W.H.
>>> Press Corps about every single GOP dirty trick in the past five years.
>>> You're not merely defeated, you're trounced and humiliated, and all of it
>>> in front of a nice large international portion of online sf fandom. Now,
>>> it is time to hold you up as an example of mundane k00kery for everyone
>>> to ridicule and throw metaphorical rotting fruits & vegetables at, and
>>> you may get a Tar & Feathers or Golden Killfile nomination later, if
>>> anyone feels so inclined. Or now, even. I don't control AUK...
>> You have to disprove my arguments to win.
> I have /dissected/ your arguments, never mind "disproven" them. I've taken
> them apart and used them to line my cat's litterbox, stomped them into dust
> and blown them away in a light breeze, used them for Gatling gun target
> practice and swept the remains into a small garbage can -- there's so
> little left of your arguments for me to disprove that I've stopped out of
> sheer empathy for you, as well as to let other people have some fun. You
> have demonstrated all the intellect of a three-days-dead crack whore in
> response to my deconstruction of your position, however, so don't imagine
> that I'm here to do anything but showcase your paranoia for the benefit of
> those who need to determine your suitability as a nominee for the Custer
> award and the Kooki Info Minister office.
This sounds like a hallucination.
>>>>>>>>Furthermore, my statements here are by far the most substantiated and
>>>>>>>>sourced. Politics
>>>>>>> Yeah, right.
>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>> Why did you quote the whole rest of the post? Do you not get the
>>>>>>> concept of threaded discussions?
>>>>>>All readers have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
>>>>>>the truth. Politics
>>>>> Maybe, but it's bad manners. Besides, alot of what you post is not
>>>>> written by you, and is often not correctly attributed. And one
>>>>> wonders if you have permission to repost alot of it from the original
>>>>> sources. But that/s another story. I will thank you to please not
>>>>> crosspost the things I write in the above newsgroups to newsgroups that
>>>>> are not related.
>>>> I am not going to limit the Newsgroup range of any of the messages I
>>>> write. You of course are free to write to whatever Newsgroups your
>>>> personal character and courage will allow you to address.
>>> You can post to any non-moderated group you please, as anyone else can.
>>> It has nothing to do with "courage" or "character", and everything to do
>>> with *interest*. Usenet is a medium of entertainment, discussion being a
>>> minor goal.
>> Wrong. The Usenet has discussion as its primary goal.
> No. Flaming or trolling is not "discussion". It can be entertaining,
> however, which is why I read so many flamewars.
Discussion is central to any dissemination of accurate information.
Thus, any wealthy fatcat who already owns the rest of the media and who considers the Usenet
to be a threat to their control of information dissemination to the public will prefer to translate
discussion into flamewars, using their public relations hacks, to interfere with that dissemination process.
And in the middle, to them you are nothing but a piece of trash to be used, abused and/or run over.
>> However, Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies have flooded
>> the Usenet with their hacks who promote Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution,
>> Pornography.
> Just keep on troweling out the k00ksigns, you may win that office yet.
Again, promotion of these issues of Sodomy, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution is
right wing libertarian, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Left.
>>>>> Your rantings about the phantom group aside, there are rules, even in
>>>>> usenet. Rules are what make for an orderly society. For the most
>>>>> part, I try to obey the 'rules of the road' in uisenet...sometimes I
>>>>> blow it, but I try and correct the behavior.
>>>>> And in following the rules, I get accused of being scared of some
>>>>> group that I don't even stipulate the existence of.
>>>>> Man oh Man. What, you can't accuse me of personal attacks, so you go
>>>>> to the 'cant chase you all over...'? You seem to have plenty of time
>>>>> on your hands.
>>>>> Either you want a serious discussion, or you want to rant. I could
>>>>> care less either way....I will out logic you in either case. But,
>>>>> since I'd like to keep those who don't care to see it out of it, I'm
>>>>> limiting it to a.bs-g a, r.a.sf.tv, and alt.politics.homosexuality.
>>>> More personal attacks.
>>>> You are free to respond or not to my messages.
>>>> Again, that is a product of your own personal character and courage.
>>>> The only limitations on cross-posting are germaneness to the topic at
>>>> hand and whatever limit of cross-post addresses one's ISP specifies.
>>>> Again, this is the Usenet. The purpose of the Usenet is an exchange of
>>>> ideas and arguments between
>>>> disparate people. If any of the people in these other Newsgroups claims
>>>> to disagree with my statements they should state that disagreement.
>>>> I have no interest in this subject, since what we are talking about is
>>>> really weakness of character and lack of courage in people on these
>>>> Newsgroups. That is not an interesting subject to me.
>>>> Politics
>>> See, even you "get it", without realising. "That is not an interesting
>>> subject to me." Why should we (tinw) or anyone else give a shit what you
>>> find "interesting"?
>> It is not a question of "should". I did not pay anyone to respond to or
>> read my messages here, like the Hollywood Homosexuals public relations
>> hacks do. There is clear interest because people do not like being
>> deceived by public media and News media. That is what people are
>> responding to and while weak character of the outspoken people here causes
>> those people to claim to disagree, they are largely playing devil's
>> advocate, or are hacks who are mouthing what they have been paid to state
>> here.
> I've seen one, maybe two -- *maybe* two -- responses to your homophobia that
> weren't entirely antagonistic (anything from Wild/Widdle Bill Taylor
> doesn't count), several others that were not overly unfriendly to your
> anti-Zionism, maybe a few more that were not totally disgusted by your
> anti-Semitism, and possibly a small bunch of others that had some points of
> agreement with you regarding Iraq. Beyond that, I've seen nothing in any of
> these x-posted threads which indicated you had any real support (Oh, but
> the lurkers support you in email, right?) from anyone who wasn't a known
> k00k or troll. Face it, people post to usenet for entertainment, not
> discussion; discussion is what happens for brief periods when people take
> breaks from flamewars.
"homophobe" -- a term used by aggressive homosexuals to describe anyone who disagrees with their
homosexual agenda. The word has become meaningless, due to inappropriate use and overuse.
All of the millions of US citizens who voted overwhelmingly against Homosexual Marriage, and in some cases
Homosexual Civil Unions also, in 11 out of 11 States in 2004 have all been labeled by aggressive homosexuals
with this now meaningless word.
"anti-Zionist" -- anyone who disagrees that the US foreign policy and military policy should be devoted
to removing Arabs/Moslems men women and children from their homeland in Palestine,
Mass Murdering them by machine gun and bombs supplied by the US in order to give that stolen
land to the Jews who either were living in the region or who were later immigrated from Europe
and other regions of the world. The word had become meaningless due to inappropriate use and overuse.
"anti-Semite" -- anyone who disagrees with Jews about any issue, including Zionism hate and mass murder
of Arabs/Moslems, or Homosexuality or Hollywood.
The word had become meaningless due to inappropriate use and overuse.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: NOMINATION: John "Easily" Shocked for Clueless Newbie of theMonth Re: George Peatty is [message #149955 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 21:10 |
|
"Paul F. Johnson" <paul [at] all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message news:1129375270.3399.5.camel [at] localhost...
> On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 02:27 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>> The problem with this Wiki piece is that the Usenet users who use the term "troll" are mainly
>> part of an army of public relations hacks
> Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again. As so often you are.
> Oh look, you still haven't rebutted my reply to you which showed you up
> as the arsehole you so obviously are...
> Now go lube up, Butch is calling for you again.
The problem with this Wiki piece is that the Usenet users who use the term "troll" are mainly
part of an army of public relations hacks who work here on the Usenet every day praising and supporting
a particular product. The Wiki writers are either unaware of the existence of these people or the writers
are mostly composed of these PR hacks.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as perceptive as they should be and many people may well go years
talking to someone on public forums like this, who shows up every day and praises a the product in question
and whenever anyone appears who attacks the product organizes their troops to call the critic a "troll"
and organizes campaigns to send false complaints to their ISP (Internet Service Provider),
and yet not realize and be too weak and lonely to want to realize that these people are PR hacks who are paid
dirty cash money to work here on the Usenet are involved in a deceitful, tortious and perhaps criminal enterprise.
The Wiki piece should be rewritten by someone who understands that public relations hacks
work pervasively on the Usenet.
And the most pervasive group of PR people on the Usenet are Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks.
If Usenet ISP officials do not want "flamewars" then they should ban anyone who:
1) insults other people,
2) calls other people epithets (including "troll"),
3) threatens other people in any way.
That is how you dissolve flame wars. Simple. I never do any of those things.
My discussions are strictly on the issues, and in this case specifically the issues which BSG poses,
by bring Sodomy into the house of you and your kids, in a campaign to sell your Son on the idea
that Sodomy is good for him and he should try some of it, as portrayed on science fiction TV.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: George Peatty is a troll (And John Shocked is too) [message #149956 ] |
Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 21:36 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:Eh94f.199472$1i.76317 [at] pd7tw2no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to John Shocked:
>> Paul Johnson wrote...
>>> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 01:35 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>>>> "homophobe" -- a term used by aggressive homosexuals to describe anyone
>>>> who disagrees with their homosexual agenda.
>>> Yawn. You've said that before and are still barking up the wrong tree.
>> Why do you believe this statement is wrong.
> Because it's a typical claim made by homophobes to divert attention away
> from their homophobia.
"homophobe" -- a term used by aggressive homosexuals to describe anyone who disagrees with their
homosexual agenda. The word has become meaningless, due to inappropriate use and overuse.
All of the millions of US citizens who voted overwhelmingly against Homosexual Marriage, and in some cases
Homosexual Civil Unions also, in 11 out of 11 States in 2004 have all been labeled by aggressive homosexuals
with this now meaningless word.
>>>> > No one is interested in your conspiracy theories. You're argument of
>>>> > "carefully selected newsgroups" is bullshit and you know it. You
>>>> > included r.a.drwho as RTD is a well known homosexual. NO ONE CARES.
>>>> > He is not trying to pervert kids, he doesn't have a "let's gay
>>>> > everyone" agenda or anything like that. Ask any Dr Who bod and they
>>>> > will have nothing but praise for him and how he has revitalised a much
>>>> > loved programme. The same applies elsewhere.
>>>> Dr. Who is included because several reports have documented that
>>>> homosexuality is being inculcated
>>>> to you and your kids by the storyline and script of that new series. Of
>>>> course, since it is not shown in the US there is no way to see it here.
>>> How little you know then. There are ways as there is such a thing as
>>> BitTorrent... Homosexuality is NOT being thrust upon anyone by any
>>> storylines, but hey, you'd know that from first hand experience. Oh
>>> wait. You don't as you've not seen them. YAAFM.
>> Most people who claim on this Newsgroup that there is no Sodomy in BSG, do
>> so knowing that the audience here is mostly US and thus most people here
>> have watched the series and know that there definitely is Sodomy in BSG.
>> Claiming falsely that there is no Sodomy in a series which people here on
>> this Newsgroup cannot yet see is simply dishonest speech.
> *This* newsgroup? I'm in APH...
BSG is the base newsgroup for these threads.
>>>> It is Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies who are the
>>>> right wing libertarians here.
>>> Rubbish. You know it as well.
>> This is fact and there is no question about it. All reports from the
>> crooks in the News Media which characterize homosexuality or drugs as Left
>> issues are simply dishonest speech, with the clear intent of conning the
>> little guy out of his little political representation.
> Yeah, right, heard it all before.
Read my posts. And understand.
>>>> > No one gives a shit about your right wing, bible bashing, anal
>>>> > retentive dribblings or your constant claims of personal attacks or
>>>> > that no-one answers your points. They don't answer them as the points
>>>> > are just so wrong that to answer them would make the respondent looks
>>>> > as big a fool as the original poster (you).
>>>> It is Hollywood Homosexuals and their Organized Crime allies who are the
>>>> right wing libertarians here.
>>> Are you unable to come up with something original?
>> A repetitive question may well elicit a representative answer. The truth
>> is not relative, as is not morality.
> I guess, where you're living, it's still the 19th Century, right?
My views are not affected by environment. In this world of public relations armies,
you have toi be able to think for yourself, unless you are comfortable being someone else's stooge.
>>>> > Hollywood doesn't have a big gay agenda. Neither does the BBC, Fox,
>>>> > Universal or any of the other TV or film companies. What they do have
>>>> > is an acceptance of the homosexual community as unlike earlier times,
>>>> > they have been recognised as a significant population of viewers, fans
>>>> > and people who watch movies, drink Coke, eat McDogburgers and enjoy
>>>> > Star Trek. If you can't see that, you should see both a shrink and an
>>>> > opthamologist. Now kindly find an suitable big rock and climb back
>>>> > under it. As I've said before, the appropriate forum for this sort of
>>>> > shite that you write is the far right. Be careful there though, even
>>>> > they are not as dumb as a bag of rocks and will rumble you.
>>>> Spielberg disagrees and only hires homosexuals nowadays.
>>> Yeah, right. And the KKK has a black PR guy.
>> The KKK is definitely an organization which is anti-government, to the
>> point of vigilantism. As such, they are in the same pack of actors which
>> includes Hollywood Homosexuals and Organized Crime, who also want to
>> commit their own selfish acts without government interference.
> K00ksign! But you're still boring, so you only get the second-rate awards.
> Very sad, when people who play Illuminati confuse their levels of reality...
The truth is never boring. Respect the truth. It is your only lifeline to reality.
Politics
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Feb 8 17:17:08 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,16015 Sekunden |
