On 2006-01-10, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> __/ [William Poaster] on Tuesday 10 January 2006 12:48 \__
>> Once upon a Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:23:45 -0600 dreary, as I laboured tired &
>> weary, came a tapping at my door when Linønutlinønut posted this, &
>> nothing more...
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>>>> What is the implication on anonymity that does *not* encourage vile
>>>> offence? UseNet archives, for example, make it far from pargamatic.
>>>> Having said that, this could make anonymous Munchkins  illegal, at
>>>> least in Linux forums where they are unwelcome and disruptive at times.
>>> Well, here in COLA we don't have Microsoft Munchkins®.
>>> We have Microsoft Buttmunches®.
>> Hm...so maybe those that address the wintrolls, should start their reply
>> with something like, for example:
>> On Tue xxth Jan 200x , DFS/Edwin/Santa/Larry Qualig/Funkenbusch (delete
>> which not required) the Microsoft Buttmuncher®, said/wrote:
> Those that address the wintrolls should be advised to stop doing so. I
> replied to trolls when I first joined this newsgroup several months ago and
> could not discern truth from lies. They keep coming in because they receive
> an argumentative discussion. It makes them feel like they get some work done
> for their money.
> I stopped reading these posts altogether. It is the best method for staying
> out. No read, no urge. Sooner or later, the trolls lose interest and go back
> under the bridge.
All true. However, not all newsreaders have the capability of handling
arbitrary headers well, and not all users are willing to change to
readers that do.
Some trolls work at trying to trick people into responding to them. I
guess they feel they've won something by pretending to be normal, then
jumping up and yelling 'BOO!' when least expected. That, and they do
things to try making kill filters ineffective. (In both instances I'm
thinking of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang Man in particular. But others do
similar things.) So, sometimes people respond to things they think are
harmless, then discover themselves dragged into a thread and wondering
how they got there.
The single best way to get avoid them is news clients that can filter
on any header, and/or using something else that can do the same, like
leafnode. Not seeing them at all is what it takes. Trying to ignore
them will only allow one to get duped into respoding at some point
anyway. That makes a few of the more tedious trolls dance with glee
(retards often *do* get excited by the simplest of things).
All that said, I'm not totally against replying to trolls. For example,
Erik would enjoy, at least to some extent, nobody responding to his
lies because they'd remain uncontested, and some may take them as fact
because of that. I just don't believe Erik needs all of the responses
he sometimes gets to show he's lying. Other trolls (Bilge or DooFu$
perhaps) might try to pull the same kind of thing.
Also, there's the fact that if the trolls aren't here, they're going to
be somewhere. Better here than in groups where real work is being done
(helping people solve problems, or describing new ways or doing
The endless prattle sometimes going on between a regular and a troll
can become tedious, for sure. But I suppose that's the price that has
to be paid for keeping them here. It *would* be nice if people would
limit themselves some.
For instance, once a troll has said a lot of stupid things, I often let
them have the last word. That post won't suddenly make them look
smarter, even if it's the smartest thing they wrote in the whole
thread. But it will put an end to the thread (unless someone else jumps
in to pick it up). They've been fed (and usually end up looking foolish
in the end), so they have no need to go elsewhere. But they won't be
overfed. Not by me, anyway.
Just my feelings on the matter.
The Microsoft motto: We're the leaders....wait for us!