View Full Version : Me...A Troll?



Dennis Heaton
05-30-2014, 06:25 PM
The other day, a fellow Member intimated that I might be "trolling." I replied that the only trolling I had ever done had to do with deep sea fishing. I always "thought" trolling had something to do with someone posting a rather large volume of messages and/or someone that was just posting a comment just to be posting. Sooooo, I hitched a ride on the world wide web and found the Urban Dictionary (new to me), and I looked up the word "trolling." And here is what I found (yeah, yeah, I know all you internet savvy young people already know this stuff, but I am trying to be "intelligent" about this subject):

1. Trollers hang around under bridges with troll guns at night (since trolls turn to stone in daylight), in the hope of bagging a troll head as a trophy. As a VERY endangered (i.e. nonexistent) species, trolls are protected by law, and trolling is therefore illegal.

2. Trolling is the term derived from the word "troll," which indicates trailing a fish along a baited line. In modern culture, trolling refers to hitting on guys when you are out, by baiting them with a little information about yourself or a flirty comment, and then playing hard to get. By planting the "bait," a girl will subsequently "troll" and find herself surrounded by a whole crowd of boys.

3. Responding through short, unhelpful, and often antagonistic means, or performing acts with the intent of getting a rise from people so it can be posted on YouTube later. No longer bound to the confines of the internet.

4. The delicate art of (expletive deleted) with people's emotions or perceived conception of reality, logic or social norms either over the internet or IRL (?) by adopting butthurtful behaviors and/or speech with the sole purpose of lulz. (?) What is true to say though is that trolls are insecure people who want to boost their hurt confidence (often done by other trolls) by asserting their dominance over people they consider sensitive or at least exploitable enough to being hurt. Otherwise, trolling can be viewed as exercising overkill in verbal or visual sadism.

5. Act of appearing on internet forums and boards with malicious intent. Trolling includes...

-batting people to flame at you
-putting the forum down and encouraging people to leave.
-flaming
-spamming
-using several identities on a board to support your own arguments / stage pretend arguments
- (edited out)

Some trolls claim they (sic) actions benefit others. These trolls are also twats.

6. Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. However, trolling statements are never true or are ever meant to be construed as such. Nearly all trolled statements are meant to be funny to some people, so it does have some social/entertainment value.

"Trolling" isn't simply "harmful statements". Intentionally insulting/libelous statements are "flaming".

Just as bad as trolling is "Feeding the Trolls". This is when people say stuff that they know will prompt someone to respond with a trolled reply and/or replying to comments that are blatantly from a troll. This is especially true when a troll first makes his comment/reply, and (usually many) people respond, either trying to correct the troll, or express anger at the statement. At that point, the trolling was successful and has been fed. When encouraged by success and feeding, trolls often return.

7. The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve deceiving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccessful troll.

Signs that your trolling is successful:

*Your victim screaming in all-caps at you.
*Personal attacks (Calling you a retard, idiot, etc.).
*Being an Internet Tough Guy.
*Making a crude remark, before quickly logging off before you can retort.

Signs that your trolling is unsuccessful:

*Your victim identifying you as a troll.
*Identifying yourself as a troll.
*Your efforts being ignored.
*Being counter-trolled (See below)

Counter-trolling (Or reverse trolling) is an effective method of redeeming yourself after being trolled. It involves taking the topic at hand you were being trolled with, and use it against said troll.

__________________________________________________ ________________

If YOU look anything like this poor fella...you just might be a Troll.

7995

Plutonic Panda
05-30-2014, 06:31 PM
People who disagree with others sometimes resort to calling their opponents trolls. I've been guilt of it a few times.

Plutonic Panda
05-30-2014, 06:35 PM
BTW...... You hardly seem like a troll. The only person I'm suspicious of is Cid

Dennis Heaton
05-30-2014, 06:57 PM
Plutonic Panda...I "really" did believe it had something to do with the number of posts submitted by a person. Sooooo, I did a Kwik-Chek (that's a software program I developed about 30 minutes ago) and here is what I came up (names have been changed to protect the innocent)...

Gandhi...23,009

Tabasco...18,004

Needlepoint...15,810

Perry Mason...14,524

Broker...13,386

Frugal Fella...10,595

Alas, I did in fact learn sumtin..."trolling" has absolutely nuttin to do with how many messages one writes on a chalkboard over a period of 2-9 years.

Midtowner
05-30-2014, 08:04 PM
In that circumstance, I was trying to pry out of you why you thought it was legitimate to protect women from complications with abortion providers by requiring the physicians to have admitting privileges, but no other doctors for other procedures. It was either an example of extreme intellectual inconsistency, or you were just messing with us. I can't really see a third option.

Plutonic Panda
05-30-2014, 08:09 PM
You disagreed with him. Plain and simple. Someone arguing with you is not cause to question their intellectual inconsistency. How is that for you to decide? The only reason your post was even liked is the fact you support abortion comment supported you others who support it.

Dennis Heaton
05-30-2014, 08:19 PM
Midtowner...not a prob. You challenge me to contemplate a lil more than I really want to sometimes, and I am A O K with that. Everything is cool. I still enjoy reading most of your posts...the ones I can comprehend.

Jim Kyle
05-30-2014, 08:49 PM
In that circumstance, I was trying to pry out of you why you thought it was legitimate to protect women from complications with abortion providers by requiring the physicians to have admitting privileges, but no other doctors for other procedures. It was either an example of extreme intellectual inconsistency, or you were just messing with us. I can't really see a third option.Well, I would back a requirement that any physician who performs "surgical procedures" have admitting privileges to at least one recognized hospital. I know from personal experience that things can go wrong during "office" procedures -- that's where my family doctor performed my vasectomy more than 55 years ago, and I had to go back two days later to get treatment for a subcutaneous haemorrohage that had turned my entire groin black...

Stew
05-31-2014, 06:14 AM
Only you know the answer to that question. So are you?

Dennis Heaton
05-31-2014, 07:38 AM
Only you know the answer to that question. So are you?

Don't hassle me, I'm loco. LOL!

Midtowner
05-31-2014, 08:08 AM
You disagreed with him. Plain and simple. Someone arguing with you is not cause to question their intellectual inconsistency. How is that for you to decide? The only reason your post was even liked is the fact you support abortion comment supported you others who support it.

When someone is being that inconsistent, it isn't a matter of opinion.

Midtowner
05-31-2014, 08:08 AM
Well, I would back a requirement that any physician who performs "surgical procedures" have admitting privileges to at least one recognized hospital. I know from personal experience that things can go wrong during "office" procedures -- that's where my family doctor performed my vasectomy more than 55 years ago, and I had to go back two days later to get treatment for a subcutaneous haemorrohage that had turned my entire groin black...

Why, did you have a hard time getting admitted to the hospital with a necrotic groin?

Urbanized
05-31-2014, 08:11 AM
Necrotic Groin would be a GREAT band name.

Dennis Heaton
05-31-2014, 08:13 AM
When someone is being that inconsistent, it isn't a matter of opinion.

"That inconsistent?" Wow! Would you be so kind, Sir, as to dumb that down for me?

Urbanized
05-31-2014, 08:17 AM
Necrotic Troll might be even better.

Urbanized
05-31-2014, 08:18 AM
Necrotic Troll Groin?

Jim Kyle
05-31-2014, 10:26 AM
Why, did you have a hard time getting admitted to the hospital with a necrotic groin?No, I didn't need hospitalization. It was frightening, but not necrotic. I simply recognize that any intrusive procedure can have unexpected side effects, and the person performing that procedure needs to be able to deal with them if necessary without involving a third party.

That said, I'm actually more than slightly opposed to governmental requirements of any sort. I think that the late John W. Campbell made some very good points that allowing anyone to practice brain surgery (for example) with no training or license requirement would make Darwin's "survival of the fittest" a more even playing field. Those seriously interested in helping their fellows would get training and practice proper techniques, thus gaining a satisfied clientele. Those inclined to cut corners and feather their own nests at the expense of others would have a string of failures and few patients. And folk who needed such services would either learn to be quite critical in choosing a practioner, or would improve the human gene pool by dropping out of it.

Draconian and totally impractical in the real world, but an interesting viewpoint nonetheless...

And perhaps both of US now fit the definition of "troll" cited earlier...

Urbanized
05-31-2014, 10:28 AM
Draconian Groin?

Midtowner
05-31-2014, 11:35 AM
"That inconsistent?" Wow! Would you be so kind, Sir, as to dumb that down for me?

Supporting a bill which discriminates only against abortion providers, placing additional restrictions on them, not other doctors and claiming it's because of your concern for the patients is not consistent.

As a further policy point, such legislation as Jim Kyle has suggested would put a lot of clinics, especially rural clinics completely out of business. Further, it's a dumb rule because hospital will admit anyone who needs emergency care. It's already the law.

The legislation is clearly geared towards closing clinics and denying healthcare to women. Especially those in rural areas.

OKCisOK4me
05-31-2014, 11:59 AM
Dennis, you are in no way, shape or form a troll. That's just people on here not understanding how you are in real life outside of a set guideline of forum rules on any website so they mislable. I wouldn't worry about it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Dennis Heaton
05-31-2014, 12:57 PM
OKCisOK4me...I appreciate that. My original Post was not meant as a complaint. Frankly, it made me chuckle. As I have said on here or somewhere else in the OKCTalk Community, I am sooooo laid back. I am not easily raddled. Maybe that comes with age? Midtowner is a good fella. I easily recall a couple of conversations he and I have had, way back when, about Judge Swinton (that was when I had to take Midtowner off my Christmas card list). Midtowner simply causes me to take pause and re-think a few opinions I have shared, and that's not a bad thing. He means well.

That being said, I do have my lines drawn in the sand, and fortunately no one has even come close to crossing those lines.

NOTE: I ought to have brought this up earlier...with all due respect, the abortion discussion is down the hall and to the right.