The Forum > General Discussion > How would you define 'Trolling?'
How would you define 'Trolling?'
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
Thanks for your kind comments and input.
Dear Antonios,
No one is suggesting censorship of this Forum.
It already comes with rules that must be
adhered to or the Forum Administrator will
take action.
I've just come across an interesting website
that may be of interest to you and other posters:
http://kayaker.nl/troll.html
"Trolls on Usenet and other Forums."
Definition of a troll:
"Trolls are people (or posts) that make use of a
discussion forum the same way public bathroom walls
are used by some for graffiti.
These posts are sometimes malicious and inflammatory,
racist, sexist, insulting - anything that can
disrupt a discussion thread..."
It seem that according to this site - the best thing
to do is not be baited into responding. Because that's
exactly what the "troll," wants. And the more you
respond the more aggresive their response to you is
going to become - until the discussion is completely
destroyed and dragged down into a slanging match - so
the given advice seems to be - ignore
the troll and carry on a decent discussion with other
posters - simply ignore the troll and continue the
discussion among yourselves.
Now why didn't we all think of that? Or as CJ would say,
"Don't feed the troll!"
Now, I finally get it!
Sorry Folks, I'm a bit naive at times. Or as another poster
put it, I've got, "pixy stardust in my eyes," (Loved that!),
which perhaps isn't as bad as all that.
I'd rather be naive, than a "troll!."