Monday, June 19, 2006

The difference between trolling and disagreeing

I know I wrote that I wasn't going to post any more threads about trolls, and that I would simply implement a solution instead. And that is my plan.

But I found this to be so excellently put that I simply could not resist highlighting it here. It's from a commmenter, Brad, on the subject of how to differentiate between trolls and mere dissenters:

So confud,
why have I never been branded a troll? I have clearly stated several times that I don't like Bush; that I didn't vote for him; that I was completely opposed to the war in Iraq; and that I never went through any 9/11-related epiphany. Clearly, I don't agree with a lot of what is stated here. Despite this, none of the people who comment here, aside from you, have insulted me or labelled me a troll. And the same is true at other blogs where I comment, across the political spectrum.

Perhaps it is because I don't repetitively post hate-filled mockery, laced with insult and misused epithets (such as your constant misuse of the term "racist"), and inform people that I am once again laughing at them. Having spent a life time in higher ed, around people who either have strong opinions (faculty) or are developing them (students), I have learned to disagree with someone, listen to any response, and move on. You, on the other hand, have barged into a virtual room, screaming invective, shouting down dialogue, attempting to shut down the forum, and then you smugly state that they call you a troll because you disagree with them. Horse poop, they call you a troll because you are a virtual violent bully.


[ADDENDUM: I am planning to be home by the end of the week, and hope to implement some of the promised changes in the blog not too long after that. It may take a while, so please be patient, but it will be done.

But because I'm such a polite hostess, I thought I'd provide this thread to give my beloved and esteemed trolls a place to vent. As I've said many times before, I believe that every time a troll goes about his/her business (I think I'll just drop the cumbersome PC inclusive pronoun designation here and go with the masculine, if you don't mind) he provides further and ever more detailed evidence of his trollish nature. So it's all in the nature of an exhibit of trolldom.

But enough is enough, and as I've said, in a little while, changes will be instituted. Please bear with me till then.]

82 Comments:

At 6:57 PM, June 19, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Virtual violent bully? Hahahaha.

I've responded to abuse and stupidity sure, but haven't instigated any. If you are going to carry on like Sally then you'll get the reaction that you deserve. If that makes me a troll, then so be it.

I've not made death threats, accused anyone of terrorism, judaism or christianity. I've introduced facts that are unpalatable to your blinkered world views and that seems to rankle most. Telling really.

I do believe that most, if not all of you, are racists and extremist nationalists with an unhealthy love of Israel.

OK?


I was going to respond to Brad's post but I couldn't remember whether it was him wetting himself about my profile. I think it was. If so he has pointed the finger without the courtesy of responding to my responses.

Does that make him a troll?

If it wasn't you Brad, I apologise.

 
At 7:25 PM, June 19, 2006, Blogger Brad said...

Hahaha, he laughs again, "all of you are so stupid" he implies again("wetting himself about my profile" he states, how sick can one get). It wasn't me who trashed you on your profile, so wrong again you are, and, frankly, your hatred of me, the host, the commenters, and the jews is truley scary.
"I've not made death threats, accused anyone of terrorism, judaism or christianity." I guess I was off mark when I wrote about your problem with moral equivilance. I stand by my statement that you suffer and need help.

 
At 7:59 PM, June 19, 2006, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Confud, it's not the facts. It's your arrogance. Tequilamockingbird in the Critical Mass Thread disagreed strongly, yet didn't come close to approaching the level of arrogance and insult that you did. That's why he's not labled a troll, whereas you are. I presented facts differing from the majority opinion in a global climate change thread weeks ago, and I did not do so by delivering insults and invective. I am not a troll; you are.

You are the one indulging in the name calling, you are the one indulging in the smug superiority, you are the one looking to deliberately irritate rather than argue, you are the one hijacking threads with off topic posts, and in short, you are the problem. And while you choose to argue against that rather than modify your behavior shows that you are deliberately choosing to be provocative. That is the very definition of being a troll, and it's beyond impolite as well. If you were a dinner guest at a house, you would have been thrown out by now. You are deliberately choosing not to see that, which makes you the problem.

As I said before, you should leave. Take it to Kos or Atrios; quit sullying this blog. Others can contribute contrary facts; you contribute arrogance and insult. That is not acceptible behavior in any circumstance.

 
At 8:28 PM, June 19, 2006, Blogger Sally said...

Oh, it's not even arrogance -- unlike other trolls, for confud it's become a kind of obsessive dementia. Quite apart from his puerile insults, at various times he's been reduced not just to incoherence, but to hissing, spitting, and giggling like an imbecile. He's become merely a sad spectacle, and banning him would be a great favor to confud most of all -- it would make him the martyr (in his own mind) he wishes he could be, of course, but more importantly it would give him a little time to reflect and perhaps recover himself.

 
At 9:06 PM, June 19, 2006, Blogger Goesh said...

I fully expect to take a peek back here in a week or so and see the same thing going on. If you don't have the guts to ban the jerk, be his doormat then.

 
At 9:33 PM, June 19, 2006, Blogger Alex said...

Here here, Brad.

Well put.

 
At 12:11 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger kcom said...

What I'm most impressed with is that Neo is talking like she knows something about computers these days. Maybe her long apprencticeship is over. :) This is the same person who wasn't sure how to post a picture awhile back. Here are some recent quotes:

However, rest assured that there are remedies.... When blogs reach a critical mass, sooner or later--if they have comments sections--they are all faced with this problem. I am planning, when I get back and have a good chunk of time, to add and/or change certain elements here that will allow me to deal quite effectively with trolls, never fear.

The goal of trolls? To take over a thread and ultimately a blog, and get everyone to dance to your tune. The technique? Have a feed and jump on the thread immediately, setting the tone and the topic.

I know I wrote that I wasn't going to post any more threads about trolls, and that I would simply implement a solution instead. And that is my plan.


As to comments, especially gross generalizations, regarding other posters, they are generally a better window on the soul of the person making the comment than they are of the group being commented upon. It's just one more aspect of unsophisticated, absolutist thinking.

 
At 12:12 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

At 9:28 PM, June 19, 2006, Sally said...
Oh, it's not even arrogance -- unlike other trolls, for confud it's become a kind of obsessive dementia. Quite apart from his puerile insults, at various times he's been reduced not just to incoherence, but to hissing, spitting, and giggling like an imbecile. He's become merely a sad spectacle, and banning him would be a great favor to confud most of all -- it would make him the martyr (in his own mind) he wishes he could be, of course, but more importantly it would give him a little time to reflect and perhaps recover himself.



I rest my case.

 
At 12:24 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Brad said...
Hahaha, he laughs again, "all of you are so stupid" he implies again("wetting himself about my profile" he states, how sick can one get). It wasn't me who trashed you on your profile, so wrong again you are, and, frankly, your hatred of me, the host, the commenters, and the jews is truley scary.
"I've not made death threats, accused anyone of terrorism, judaism or christianity." I guess I was off mark when I wrote about your problem with moral equivilance. I stand by my statement that you suffer and need help.

8:25 PM, June 19, 2006


Oh FFS, I don't hate you and I've apologized IF it wasn't you carrying on about the profile. You all take yourselves so seriously that you open yourselves to ridicule.

As I said, when you get accused of being a terrorist sympathiser for posting links to facts that don't conform to the neocon view of the world, what do you expect to get in return? It is hardly robust logic or mature debate is it?

You know, I've spent a fair bit of time in your country and I still own a house there, I know how prim and sensitive about politics you can be. Americans by and large are nice people and I generally getr along well with them, but FFS you can be blinkered and unworldly. That is part of why you don't understand where you are going wrong. People don't conform to your standards (including your government) and you've no right whatsoever to expect them to.

 
At 12:27 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

You are the one indulging in the name calling, you are the one indulging in the smug superiority, you are the one looking to deliberately irritate rather than argue, you are the one hijacking threads with off topic posts, and in short, you are the problem. And while you choose to argue against that rather than modify your behavior shows that you are deliberately choosing to be provocative. That is the very definition of being a troll, and it's beyond impolite as well. If you were a dinner guest at a house, you would have been thrown out by now. You are deliberately choosing not to see that, which makes you the problem.


Please refer to any post by Sally, Wasp, Nyo (mostly) and neo's supposed psychoanalytical ramblings. These are intentional insults.

Goose, gander, pot, kettle etc

 
At 12:39 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

BTW Brad,,,,,

"and the jews"


I take exception to that. I can see through the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli regime without being a bigot like most of the ever so polite (haha) posters here against a religion or associated group of people.

I dismiss as mere superstition each religion equally.

There is no valid reason to support what is being done to the Palestinians by Israel and the US. You call yourselves a christian country don't you?

 
At 12:51 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Do not take exception, do not claim hurt, do not try to claim high ground you do not deserve. The fact that your insults are intentional does not excuse them. You have brought ill judgement on yourself. You refuse to modify your behavior. That is not the conduct of an adult. You are no longer welcome here. Leave.

 
At 1:07 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Hmmm, I don't think so.

Please explain what "behaviour modification" you would wish. You're not oppressing me are you?

 
At 1:11 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Do you expect me to be Gandhi in the face of the intentional insults of your peers?

Bit like what you all seem to expect of the Palestinians ain't it?

 
At 1:14 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

What you think is irrelevant. What you do is what matters. You've already been told what behavior is acceptible, so don't play coy. You know full well what you're doing; your statement about intentional insults shows that. Leave.

 
At 1:17 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

That is the last I will say regarding Confud. Neo, my sincere apologizes and sympathy for what the comment section has become. I hope whatever measures you see fit to implement to crack down on the poison has good effect.

If you choose to delete his posts, feel free to delete mine as well. I realize the acid does no one any good, and without context, those posts won't make any sense anyway.

 
At 3:08 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

No. I don't know what you think is acceptable. Seems to me that the crap really started flying when Israeli aggression was mentioned. How surprising.

Really babaganouij, if that is acid you have a lot to learn. If you think that your political heroes act as nicely as you seem to expect me to, you're very very wrong.

There are no tea parties in the centres of power you know. If you're going to pretend to be strategists then act like the strategists. Swear a little and get a bit rough.

This isn't effing television and it ain't an episode of the West Wing boyo. Your heros are as rough talking as me and way worse.

Now tell me what is acceptable behaviour. Should I take my cue from the bomb on the beach thread and display ......what? I don't know what that crap is if it isn't unbridled racism.

 
At 3:22 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger robaf70 said...

I'll ignore all of the online bravado since I had to actually fight while growing up and grew out of it once I reached my early twenties. What a luxury it must be to do it online these days.

I just wanted to tell neo that I'd like go for a walk and maybe get an ice cream cone.

 
At 4:05 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

At 8:59 PM, June 19, 2006, Elmondohummus said...
Confud, it's not the facts. It's your arrogance. Tequilamockingbird in the Critical Mass Thread disagreed strongly, yet didn't come close to approaching the level of arrogance and insult that you did.


Mr Bird displays commendable patience I agree. I have neither the time nor his/her patience. I wish I did but I find the screeching stupidity somewhat tiring and annoying. It isn't argument when each fact is greeted with "indecent left", "insane", "dishonest pacifist", "terrorist sympathiser" etc.

Be honest. Have a go at Sally Ymar and wasp and I'll take you seriously. Seriously. Until then you are a hypocrite.

As for arrogance...........don't get me started. The arrogant American anyone? We've all met them.

BTW It isn't my intention to destroy the blog. I'd just like some honesty and some clear thinking about the issues, rather than obfuscation, dissembling and autogainsaying.

I'd like Sally to leave too. I loathe her stupidity inanity and her screeching childish parrot act. But it isn't my place to demand it.

 
At 4:16 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger neo-elvis said...

troll?

 
At 4:22 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Sally said...

Didn't he say he rested his case? So rest it.

 
At 8:14 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger babushka said...

Just ban or delete or otherwise marginalize the troll, who thinks he is the dinner host here.

All this dilatoriness does not reflect at all well on the clarity of the hostess.

Just winnow. Don't justify.

Sheesh.

 
At 8:55 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...

Can't we just delete this fool?

Just say, "fine, we're all dirty evil rotten bastards. You win. Goodbye." ZOT!

 
At 9:55 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

I've responded to abuse and stupidity sure, but haven't instigated any.

Check my blog for the archive of why Confud is not telling the truth. I don't know whether Confud actually believes he hasn't instigated any, or whether this is some sort of self-deception going on. But the proof is in Confud's first foray on this site, through this link.

Link

You all take yourselves so seriously that you open yourselves to ridicule.


Ya, Ymir does take himself seriously, but I don't think we do however. Has Confud started telling jokes about Ymir? Dangerous endeavour I say.

Do you expect me to be Gandhi in the face of the intentional insults of your peers?

Again, people, read the link as it archives Confud's first foray on this site, and it is the proof of why Confud's justifications for his belief do not exist in anything other than his mind. I was answering some of Confud's questions concerning Americans and our political perspectives, including my own, and when Confud realized that I disagreed with him about the Palestinians, Confud started calling me a racist and arrogant. And I did not throw any insults at him at first, though I did impugn his character after Confud showed himself such an unfairish boor.

Be honest. Have a go at Sally Ymar and wasp and I'll take you seriously. Seriously. Until then you are a hypocrite.

Tequila likes to have a go at me every now and then, but it doesn't go well for him. However much Tequila dislikes me and jumps to conclusions based upon, I don't know perhaps prejudices, Tequila is self-honest to admit his mistakes and not try to weave a web of deception. Confud has much to learn from Tequila, and I say that with all frankness, as surprising as that may seem even to myself telling someone to learn from Tequila. Which I normally would try to avoid and say the opposite.

 
At 9:57 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

What is weird, is that I, Sakar, already had a go at Wasp and Sally, although they decided to drop the matter for their own reasons.

By Confud's rules, he should take me seriously. But he doesn't. But neither does he make jokes about our triluminary either, so it is a bit of a mystery going on here with Confud's behavior.

 
At 10:45 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the clueless (about why he is called a troll), smug, and arrogant Australian.

Sheesh, talk about making our case for us.

 
At 11:00 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger dloye said...

My blog is in limbo for auto-generated spam. It hardly seems fair to try to use Neo's comments to post a blog, but I'll post on my own site as soon as I can. And I'll try to be brief...

It occurred to me this morning while walking that the problems of trolls as well as the spambots are both very good markers of the value of dialog and honest communication of our experiences and the ideas that motivate our lives. I'll pass quickly the canard about what a blessing the i-net is, because it's a mixed blessing. The dialog is valuable on the individual level because it gives us the chance to examine and check our assumptions, see if the road map is still functioning correctly. On a larger level it allows us to winnow out the worthless ideas and find the gems among the piles and piles of .... well you know.

But as neo-con's original working thesis in this blog indicates, when the road map is found wanting, retooling and finding a new set of core assumptions is a very painful experience. Plenty of resistence is thrown in the the path psychically. There will always be bullies, trolls and such, because honestly engaging in a discussion can lead to some very painful places.

Societally, there are some serious consequences as well. The picture I have of the ancient Greeks in the agora drinking tea or ouzo discussing the issues of the day is surely as inacurate as it is quaint. But if I imagine only a little of the scene, I know there had to be dialog bullies there too who demanded to try to use all the tricks available to them to control direction if not the subject of debate. In fact I can easily envision a drama piece along these themes. Hmmmm....

It is the comment section of someone else's blog. I've overstayed my welcome. I'll get my blog up and running, and maybe develop some of the themes I passed here quickly.

 
At 11:01 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger stumbley said...

C'mon, folks...trolls do indeed have some value—

Without confud's help, I might have gone my whole life believing I was a socially liberal, fiscally conservative moderate libertarian. Instead, I've found that I'm really a "very very childish, bigoted, ultranationalist zionist racist moron."

Who knew?

 
At 11:18 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Zeno said...

I do believe that most, if not all of you, are racists and extremist nationalists

That's a stupid generalization. I live in South America, so I doubt I could be labelled a "nationalist" in the sense you imply. Racism? I wonder if you even understand the meaning of the word. I suggest you travel a bit, try to see the real world for a change.

 
At 11:19 AM, June 20, 2006, Blogger MrsWhatsit said...

What I see in confud is that he is deeply frightened by how impressed he is with this blog, with its hostess, and possibly with some of its commenters as well. If he were truly as repelled by all this as he claims to be, he would not hover obsessively over this place as he does, nor pick through every single post and comment word by word for argument fodder, nor basically live here all day long -- any time, apparently, that he is not asleep.

Look at the history. Look how often he is the first to add a comment, and how he can be counted upon to show up every few minutes after that to spew insults at everyone else, often for hours at a time. On this post, for instance, his was the first comment, and then he went on to comment nine times in nine hours. Most people don't post that often even on their own blogs!

So why is he so obsessed with this spot, of all spots on the Internet? I'm sure that for him, as with other trolls, sheer cussed meanness and probably a psychopathic element plays a role. The attention he gets here absolutely feeds that side of him.

But I think his obsession also results from his own awareness that something is going on here that doesn't fit the way he wants to see his political opponents and himself -- and it just scares him to death. Read a few of his comments. You can see the fear -- it's all over them. If he doesn't keep shouting "Racist! Palestinians! Beaches! Iraq! Racists! Neocons! Racists! Bigots! Beaches!" as loudly and as often as he can, presumably with his fingers stuck in his ears, he runs the terrible risk of hearing and understanding what is actually being said here. He can't allow that, because he has already heard and understood enough to know that if that happens, his most basic ideas about himself and politics and how the world works will come crashing down around him.

Only intense fascination causes that kind of behavior. I think he is drawn to this blog like a moth to the flame -- it pulls him irresistibly, and he's the last to realize that as it draws him in it's also burning him up. Summed up, I think our hostess has rattled him deeply. He wants to go on believing that all neocons must be the thugs that his prejudices tell him they must be. And to his fascinated despair, Neo just keeps on flatly refusing to be that person. With each new insightful, thoughtfully-worded, well-informed, gracefully expressed post, she chips away a little more at the props of his identity. As those chips cut deeper into his foundation, his squalls get correspondingly louder and less rational. The more he posts, the more he proves it.

 
At 12:38 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

To repeat a point I made before, that backs up mrswhatis' contention, people become very uncomfortable when they encounter beliefs that are diametrically different from their own. Republicans and conservatives literally cannot read Daily Kos or Atrios as often as Confud reads neo-neocon. Neither can Democrats read Ann Coulter, regardless of the satisfaction they might get from saying "yes, I read your book, will you stop belaboring the point now at every liberal that disagrees with you".

Mentally, it is painful to try to grasp what other people who disagree with you are saying, because it feels like an attack on your very self-identity. And people that have adhered their identity matrix to their politics, have even more problems with differing opinions. Politicians can agree, obviously, because they are interested in power. Power is the blood that they deal in, and power is their identity, politics is simply a way to acquire power, to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place over the issues. Some politicians fall prey to ideology, and those are not very good politicians.

In the end, there has to be some very extreme benefits for a person like Confud to keep reading such comments and opinions, that he himself has obviously labeled as diametrically opposite of his.

I think mrswhatsit did a very good psychological grilling and profile of Confud.

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't agree with people just for the sake of agreement or because they made a compelling case that I've never heard about. All the elements are present here, and are the same as I knew existed, it just has a different interpretation, color, and orientation since it came from mrswhatsit.

It is this different interpretation, color, and orientation that I seek, not any fundamental agreement or disagreement. Some people have specialized in other bypaths however.

To source Sun Tzu again (that guy has some age old wisdom that has stood the test of time and war), if you become inflexible like Confud, that simply broadcasts your weaknesses to your enemies, and prevents you from defending your weak points and also prevents you from exploiting your strong points.

Once a person gets beyond agreeing and disagreeing, to something more enlightened, then they will achieve a greater understanding of things. And that benefits everyone, not least of all themselves.

 
At 4:28 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...

Oh, please, not more troll psychoanalysis.

These jokers need to be deleted, not to be given therapy.

 
At 5:08 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Zeno,

I would wager that I would be the most travelled person on here. I live in 3 countries, own property in 5, have 2 passports and earn most of my non passive income from work I do in second and third world countries. Even my 2 youngest kids have both visited 31 countries (Brazil included).


It is pretty damn funny that some of you (Americans)are likening this rubbish to a dinner party. Don't you know that Americans don't get invited to polite dinner parties? Way too embarassing. Your culture, like all others, has its faults. Uncivilized eating happens to be one of yours.


Mrswhatsit.

Sorry, way off base. I think the people the neocon cheerleaders are following are the thugs and crooks, as are the islamic nutters and the butchers in control of much of the third world.

I haven't decided what motivates the cheerleaders and probably couldn't, except on a case by case basis. Profound stupidity seems to be a common denominator though.

Nor am I obsessed with this blog. I'm posting on 3 or 4 at the moment while I am catching up with paperwork (it's that time of year). Sometimes I sit down after dinner and spray a bit. So what?

Anyways you don't have to fear for much longer, I'm off to see my friends and colleagues at the *Axis of Evil*(c) head office soon.

It's awfully gratifying to have a whole thread dedicated to me though. But, in the end, it would have been more stisfying just to have some of the harder questions answered or some of the facts presented acknowledged.

Oh well, you can lead a horse and all that. Donkeys, however are a different proposition entirely.

 
At 6:03 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

*yawn*

 
At 6:25 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Ariel said...
*yawn*

7:03 PM, June 20, 2006


Real reasoned debate there. What a coward you are, Ariel. Disappointing.

 
At 6:43 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

There was no debate, just your laughable bigoted monologue. At least no one can say your full of it, you're too full of yourself to be full of anything else. Though the two things may be the same.
The only response it deserved was a *yawn*.

 
At 7:10 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger stumbley said...

" I live in 3 countries, own property in 5, have 2 passports and earn most of my non passive income from work I do in second and third world countries."

I knew it! It's all just guilt from being a capitalist pig exploiting the third world!

He's really one of us!!

 
At 7:21 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Very good Stumbley,

an arch capitalist who disagrees with unilateral military intervention from both a moral and practical stance. Also a proponent of fiscal responsibility and free trade.

Difficult concept maybe, but we do exist.

Maybe I can get you to understand why I find Sally and Ymar et al so tiresome and ridiculous.

Ariel,

funny that I find myself defending Americans quite often too. The world is a complex place.

 
At 9:39 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Guilt, a lot of rich people suffer from it. It's annoying.

 
At 11:44 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Nope, no guilt here. Wrong again Yfronts.

 
At 11:47 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

This seems familiar. From the American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_19/article1.html

Might be long but definitely worth reading.

As George Orwell reminds us, “If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

 
At 2:12 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

And here is a Murdoch view of the Bush 'doctrine' now.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,19535850-12250,00.html


Uncle Deeppockets is no lefty I can assure you. Nor is Paul Kelly.

 
At 3:07 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

"Goose, gander, pot, kettle etc"

Still and admission of being covered in soot.


No one bothers arguing with you anymore because when they take you apart on facts you simply insist you're correct but can't find any info or links to back you up right now... or ever. 100,000 dead in Iraq, Depleted Uranium...

Confude eviscerated with facts here

From that exchange:
Confude: "On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?"

Me: "No, what you believe is 'acceptable' is up to you. You're supposed to realize you bought a line (hook and sinker included), because you didn't bother to research something easily disproved because it fit in so nicely with your preconceptions. This says something about what you believe in general, and your abilities to discern fact from propaganda. But you're not gentleman enough to admit you've been had, and concede the point."

 
At 7:29 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Captain Wrath said...

You know, I started reading through this thread, and just did not have the interest or strength. I have dealt with plenty of trolls, and I have unfortunately occassionally become one in responding to other posters troll-like behavior. The whole thing is tiring, and that is the ultimate point for trolls. They want to argue and feel like they are superior, but don't want, or don't have the ability, to have an argument. Its too much work, or they do not have the actual facts on their side, so it becomes a 21st game of "I know you are, but what am I?" Anyone remember this Monty Python skit?

"M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up."

Engaging with trolls is a guilty pleasure, sure, but overindulging is bad for you. Ultimately, the only solution is to ban someone who is consistently a jerk. At worst, those actually engaged in a worthwhile conversation are inimpeded, and at best, a troll may actually learn through negative reinforcement to clean up their act.

 
At 8:20 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

That Monty Python script is hilarious, although it might not be if I actually had heard it instead of hearing it in my head.

 
At 8:20 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

I was wondering why Orwell created the torture scene with the rats and strapping old winston in, in order to torture him with brainwashing. Liberty is tyranny, and it is also the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.

 
At 10:01 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger cb said...

"I would wager that I would be the most travelled person on here. I live in 3 countries, own property in 5, have 2 passports and earn most of my non passive income from work I do in second and third world countries. Even my 2 youngest kids have both visited 31 countries (Brazil included)."



I would have wagered all my money this was some kid in his twenties. Wow, an adult. And with kids!

 
At 10:07 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Sally said...

Well, but also a guy with a basketful of pathologies, remember, one of which happens to be lying.

 
At 10:50 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

His kidz read this site and laugh about it as well, if you trust Confud's testimony. So it is a great big family get together it seems.

 
At 1:55 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

At 4:07 AM, June 21, 2006, douglas said...
"Goose, gander, pot, kettle etc"

Still and admission of being covered in soot.


No one bothers arguing with you anymore because when they take you apart on facts you simply insist you're correct but can't find any info or links to back you up right now... or ever. 100,000 dead in Iraq, Depleted Uranium...

Confude eviscerated with facts here

From that exchange:
Confude: "On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?"

Me: "No, what you believe is 'acceptable' is up to you. You're supposed to realize you bought a line (hook and sinker included), because you didn't bother to research something easily disproved because it fit in so nicely with your preconceptions. This says something about what you believe in general, and your abilities to discern fact from propaganda. But you're not gentleman enough to admit you've been had, and concede the point."




Well actually, I've replied with this each time aand you are yet to acknowledge it. The figure may be in dispute but it hasn't been rebutted.

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9349


The report stands on its own merits and the 'rebuttal' was dishonest it seems.

 
At 1:58 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Sally said...
Well, but also a guy with a basketful of pathologies, remember, one of which happens to be lying.

11:07 AM, June 21, 2006


Well Sally, that is easy to say, but you are yet to show me where I've lied. I've not deleted posts like you have and I'm still waiting for you to show me how Israeli occupation of the Golan is a "lie".

 
At 1:59 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Ymarsakar said...
His kidz read this site and laugh about it as well, if you trust Confud's testimony. So it is a great big family get together it seems.

11:50 AM, June 21, 2006


Please point out where I've ever said that.

 
At 2:08 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

Ymar,
I believe the only time Confudeforeigner used the laugh line was regarding a friend (female). I believe that there was an implication also that his circle of friends would do the same. There is of course a joke buried in that last sentence. Sorry, couldn't resist.

If there was a post I missed, since I only drop in on occasion, you might present it. Confude does not mention his children often, I mine even less, as they aren't germane.

 
At 2:34 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

There is of course a joke buried in that last sentence.


Way too subtle for little Yfronts. Oooh is there a joke buried there as well?

 
At 3:35 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Confud has a lot of posts, and I don't catalogue all of them. As I recall, somebody was talking about his family member, or as you said a family friend, reading this blog and laughing about the playful seriousness of the people who comment here. Confud used this as an example of why his ridicule found play with supporters, and why we should be demoralized by this fact.

Confude did mention his sons before this, but I don't remember if it was in the same comment-cluster.

 
At 5:21 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Ymar stop making things up.

 
At 5:41 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

Oh, just cherry-picking away...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#db

Not exactly a pro-war site.

 
At 8:59 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Steve said...

Perhaps it is because I don't repetitively post hate-filled mockery, laced with insult and misused epithets (such as your constant misuse of the term "racist"), and inform people that I am once again laughing at them.

O.K so being a troll is about being rude and using epithets and terms that others are incapable of comprehending.

Is that the case?


Seems to me that crude spent some time on a previous thread explaining quite calmly and eloquently his use of the term "racist".

Is this best example of what trolling means?

I'm confused. I'm new to the site so any help(no trolls now)would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

 
At 9:13 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Steve said...

I've just finished reading neo's threads on Trolls and I have to say the only conclusion I can come to, having read through the rather boring(if I may)and stupifying story about a former classmate(be so bold)
is that if one makes a criticism or point that is against the neoconservative theme of the majority on this blog i.e pro-war v anti-war - than this is considered trolling.

Is this correct?

 
At 10:07 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

There are like 10 or so steves I've seen on the net blog comments sections.

It's like Michael, there are like a lot of variations.

Steve should have read brad's post, since he quotes part of it, yet he still asks questions as if he is ignorant of that fact.

So the answer is no.

 
At 10:09 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Btw, why is people like steve and Confud not even putting quotation marks, since they don't use bold scripts, when they quote other people's words?

 
At 10:35 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

"f one makes a criticism or point that is against the neoconservative theme of the majority on this blog i.e pro-war v anti-war - than this is considered trolling."

No.

 
At 10:41 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Steve said...

thank you.

Brad's post, as it was in neo's thread, was used as an example of what trolling is.

Hard to come to any other conclusion based on what is written there.

But I'll take your word for it....

 
At 11:30 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Sally said...

Steve: Seems to me that crude spent some time on a previous thread explaining quite calmly and eloquently his use of the term "racist".

Donno who "crude" is supposed to be, but a conned spent some time on a previous thread trying to defend the idea that the term "racist" doesn't really have anything to do with race, or theories of racial superiority, but rather applies to anyone who criticizes a culture. This got him into a number of contortions, which he tried to get out of largely by just repeating himself -- but in the end he dwindled away to mumbling, and then dropped the topic.

Which, in itself, wouldn't make him a troll -- but he got into this absurd position because, like a lot of people on the left, he first of all used "racism" as merely a general slur or insult directed at the blog and its readers in general. Then he was forced to try to argue the point or stand revealed as merely a troll immediately. In the end, of course, he didn't and doesn't fool very many about his status -- you might be an exception, though.

 
At 11:31 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Ariel said...
Oh, just cherry-picking away...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#db

Not exactly a pro-war site.


6:41 PM, June 21, 2006


Well, that is one source and the survey published in Lancet is another (with greater academic standing I would add).

The quote at the top is interesting though.

“We don’t do body counts”
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command


That, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

 
At 11:56 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Steve said...
I've just finished reading neo's threads on Trolls and I have to say the only conclusion I can come to, having read through the rather boring(if I may)and stupifying story about a former classmate(be so bold)
is that if one makes a criticism or point that is against the neoconservative theme of the majority on this blog i.e pro-war v anti-war - than this is considered trolling.

Is this correct?

10:13 PM, June 21, 2006


Got it in one Steve. Sallys little essay is a display of her particular brand of ignorance. She doesn't/can't actually argue but thinks she wins as soon as she doesn't understand the opposing viewpoint. Any argument can be won by pointing the "insane left" finger whether it is relevent or not.

She is a pet of neo though, (being one of the cheerleaders for death), so arguing logically will get you branded a troll soon enough.

One more thing, it is fine to hate muslims(particularly Palestinians), black people, gays, Europeans, Australians, leftists (that's anyone who isn't a neocon) but being at all suspicious of Israel is a crime against humanity.

Just so's y'know. :-)

 
At 12:40 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

"One more thing, it is fine to hate muslims(particularly Palestinians), black people, gays, Europeans, Australians, leftists (that's anyone who isn't a neocon) but being at all suspicious of Israel is a crime against humanity."

Steve,

Oh, that's just hogwash from confudeforeigner. He likes to hurl invective, hijack threads, many other things, not all, that trolls do.

You have to go back through the comment section of many of Neo's posts to fully see it. Right now everyone is tired of him so a lot of insults are being hurled back at him. You will find that you will never win an argument, because he is always right. Period.

Confudeforeigner,
The article in Lancet was 2004. The study has been refuted or questioned everywhere except for those who cling to the number. That has been shown on other threads here and elsewhere.

There have been questions on the methodology, with both affirmation and negation. I quote from the authors: "this normal distribution indicates that we are 97.5% confident that more than 8,000 died, 90% confident more than 44,000 died and that the most likely death toll would be around 98,000." without giving their confidence in that last number. The Iraqi body count site, if you looked deeper believes they may be low on their numbers, but I can't remember their deviation. Look, throwing that number out like it is real, rather than an estimate where they could be way off if the methodology is flawed, as some claim, is irresponsible.

The Tommy Franks quote is probably regarding the insane policy of the Vietnam war, without context there is no way of drawing any real conclusion. Although, I'm not sure how you meant it is a war crime, but I haven't time to reread the 70 pages of the Geneva convention. So please clarify. Or slam me for the "hogwash" and all comment. Either way it keeps you busy.

 
At 12:44 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

I can't pass up the opportunity to demonstrate Confudes lack of a basic understanding of logical argument, as well as his inability to read and comprehend or his intellectual dishonesty- you decide.

Here's his repeat attempt to use an opinion article referring to the Lancet study to justify it's findings. Pathetic.

Confude 2:55 PM, June 21, 2006: "Well actually, I've replied with this each time aand you are yet to acknowledge it. The figure may be in dispute but it hasn't been rebutted.

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9349


The report stands on its own merits and the 'rebuttal' was dishonest it seems.


I'll save people the trip to the other thread:

At 5:51 AM, May 26, 2006, douglas said...

100,000? Get with the times, that's long ago debunked. Where, pray tell, do you get your info? This article at Slate slams the [Lancet] survey, and they're no fans of the Bush admin. He goes with Iraq the body counts numbers, but they're dissected here. You won't like the source, but I'd like to see you refute it with logical argument.
Of course, then you'd have to explain why a more complete survey by the UN puts the number FAR lower... link
They say:"War-related Death
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare."

One then has to also keep in mind that some of those casualties are 'civilian' combatants/insurgents, many were innocent civilians killed BY insurgents, or used as human shields, victims of crime would be indistinguishable from those of warfare, intersectarian violence, etc. Also, subtract all those who weren't killed by Saddam since he's been out of power... It actually doesn't leave all that many for our helicopter gunships and smart-bombs, does it...

Are you starting to see yet why we don't simply take all you claim as fact at face value???



At 1:56 AM, May 28, 2006, douglas said…
www.citypaper.com
“We assumed that most of the deaths were going to be from typhoid” or other disease, Burnham says. Instead, more than half the reported deaths were from violence, particularly coalition air strikes."
just a few paragraphs after justifying the nuber this way:
"The study, which was carried out over four weeks by a team of seven medical researchers in Iraq, did not say that U.S. soldiers killed 100,000 noncombatants. It said that 100,000 excess deaths occurred since the start of the ground war. That counts the people shot or buried under rubble—and it also counts the people who died of malnutrition or starvation, who became sick and died from drinking polluted water, and people who died from all other causes directly and indirectly related to the war, including the skyrocketing crime rate."

"More than half" would be over 50,000- still wildly out of range of the UN report numbers... try again.

 
At 12:47 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

Oh, and if you want to try to tell people again that you've not really been refuted, I'll post it then, too.

A bald faced liar to boot.

 
At 3:32 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Feel free to post what you want to Douglas, it seems to me that free speach is an all too precious commodity these days, despite the rhetoric of your chimp and his war criminal backers.

As I've said the study is good statistical analysis and your 'debunking' was dishonest. Maybe you should read the Geneva Conventions first though AND consider who exactly was the belligerent before you reply.

Go for your life.

 
At 12:34 AM, June 23, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

Non sequitur
Declarative with no substance
Non sequitur

Typical (non)response.

 
At 12:55 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ariel said...

Douglas,

That was well done. An incisive indictment of a non-response. He basically said the same things over again, just more vehemently. I just went through it on another post.

Let it go. Ignore him. If this were a party, you'd recognize him for what he is and walk away.

The insults are to keep you coming back at him for his pleasure.

 
At 1:39 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

If this was a party, it's time to get out the knives and start um... the meals.

 
At 2:39 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Just an observation, Ariel, but Confude's been revealed before, notably right before you started speaking to him on that earlier thread.

The thing that affects people's psychology when it comes to ignoring trolls is that it has to be unified, otherwise it becomes fragmented. Since on an usual basis, people come to this site and regularly comment with Confude, it creates this "futility" argument. People here are of course, courteous. And we don't tell people who are new here what to do, like "stop feeding the trolls". This is not a criticism of your remark, but it is an explanation for why not everyone kept telling you, Ariel, to stop feeding Confude back when you were talking about him like a week ago when he wasn't insulting you.

It seemed to me at least, if people want to talk to Confude, they should be warned that he will blow up eventually, however it is best to let them see the results for themselves as that is the most convincing argument available. However, this negates some of the justifications for not feeding the trolls. Because newcomers and others will "always" start talking to confude, given the amount of posts people like him post, there is a perceived futility to the regulars ignoring him.

An agent provacateur can be ignored some of all of the time, or all of some of the time, but never all of all of the time.

 
At 3:09 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Jonathan said...

The blog owner should simply delete all trolling comments. Otherwise someone will always respond to the troll and maintain the troll's behavior, which crowds out reasonable conversation. It's clear from Neo's writing that she knows how to identify trolls. I don't understand why she doesn't ban them. Why so fastidious or hesitant to act decisively?

 
At 4:09 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Neo said she is working on a solution, but she won't mention it since it will be a surprise.

 
At 4:10 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

People have said that blogger can't ban people, without some modifications.

 
At 2:03 AM, June 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Actually Douglas, I have responded several times and you haven't acknowledged the response. I stand by the study and I stand by the cancer study in Basra too. The numbers are verifiable from MSF and others.


Ariel, this is getting to the point where I think you might be trolling me. Sally is kind of like that too.

Creepy.

 
At 2:06 AM, June 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Jonathan said...
The blog owner should simply delete all trolling comments. Otherwise someone will always respond to the troll and maintain the troll's behavior, which crowds out reasonable conversation. It's clear from Neo's writing that she knows how to identify trolls. I don't understand why she doesn't ban them. Why so fastidious or hesitant to act decisively?


Ah yes Neo can identify anyone who doesn't agree with her narrow view of the world given to her by other right wingnut blogs that she trolls for ideas.


Discussion in Neo's view should only involve agreement among like minded cheerleaders for murder death and islamonoia.

 
At 5:40 AM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Jonathan said...

Ymarsakar,

Thanks, I read Neo's announcement about her pending response to trolls. I don't think banning is effective in any blogging system, since few commenters have static IP addresses. AFAIK the only effective option is to delete or edit offending posts, either directly or by holding comments for moderation. Are any other methods effective?

 
At 5:48 AM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Jonathan said...

Oh yeah, there is another option: an "ignore this commenter" feature for other commenters to use. This method would have the major advantage of not requiring constant monitoring by Neo. Given her style I suspect that this is the type of solution that she will implement.

 
At 10:01 AM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Well, technically assassination of the person's computer hard drive is the most effective, but Neo would have to have friends in the cyber-hackers for that.

I'm no expert in computer infiltration or data manipulation and safeguards, so Neo will have to just take the advice of her family and implement whatever tech solutions current technology allows.

Other bloggers have tried different registration and comment systems, that allows them greater control. Perhaps Haloscan.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger