UPDATE: If you haven’t yet, check out Ken’s troll links.
Connect
no feeding the trolls
This entry was posted in Mark's Life. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
18 Comments
nummy! more leftwing paranoia please. How can you get your meat without socialist paranoia?
Fitting.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.02.15PajamasGates-X.gif
So the trolls have finally left the site. It’s ours now.OURS I say! What do you want to do now?
Don’t make eye contact, my friends. And, if you have to, put wax in your ears. I know you can do this.
Good luck.
Boortz was talking about the USS Carter. A nuclear sub named after Jimmy Carter. He proposed naming it the USS Appeaser. Much more fitting dont you think.
Can imagine anything named after Jimmy Carter going to battle? As Boortz stated “Perhaps a more appropriate Jimmy Carter submarine would be one that runs on solar power and delivers humanitarian aid to communist countries. Oh, and it would be about 48 degrees inside with everyone wearing sweaters. Gotta conserve energy, you know.”
We can discuss the man who almost ruined our country in Carter. Thank god for Reagan. That can be our topic today.
Here are a couple of links in honor of “Don’t Feed the Trolls Day” here at MM.com:
The Troll section in an artical about online vermin. Well written.
The Troller. This is an art gallery that someone put together of the Flame Warriors.
Thanks for the link. I like the picture and when confronted by a “troll” as you choose to call some of us. This is the best way to describe how those handle it on this site at times:
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/crybaby.htm
A Collision Discourse
By Judith Martin
Sunday, October 3, 2004; Page D02
It seems un-American to have etiquette restrictions on discussing politics informally, among friends, colleagues and anyone else who will stand still long enough. How else are the citizens supposed to thrash out the plethora of complex issues of our time and arrive at judicious and reasoned decisions?
Well, we could study one another’s T-shirts and bumper stickers. We could glean understanding from those who shout down candidates before anyone hears what they have to say, and those who start cheering them before anyone hears what they have to say. Or we can just snap out opinions at one another, and remark upon the stupidity of anyone who doesn’t agree.
Since this is what we do anyway, it strikes Miss Manners that etiquette hardly needs to caution that political conversation can be volatile. Conversation? What conversation?
When was the last time you heard political talk that included such phrases as “You do have a point there” or “I hadn’t thought of that” or “Tell me more about how that would work”?
Miss Manners can sense the derision felt for these wimpy statements. Why would you say such things unless you didn’t know what you were talking about? Anyway, you don’t win by making the other person look smart. And you certainly don’t win by showing yourself to be so unsure of your beliefs that you can be talked out of them.
She doesn’t doubt that this assessment is true for people who are running for office. What puzzles her is why the electorate is more interested in demonstrating that it already knows everything than in delving for information and exchanging ideas.
Perhaps it is because we are so used to observing and participating in conflicts in which sides are chosen ahead of time, anything short of total endorsement constitutes disloyalty, and the object is to win. In law, sports, debates, and business and international negotiations, partisanship is a given.
Even then, the particular rules that apply mandate that each side be allotted a fair chance, limit the tactics that can be used, and require a show of respect for the opposition and for the presiding authority. No one believes that this represents true open-mindedness, but the forms provide order and dignity that prevent the proceedings from deteriorating into melees.
Candidates, their staffs, and voters who have made up their minds should take the same approach. One reason for etiquette’s wariness about political discourse is that they often don’t. Respect for opposing views is in short supply these days.
But if there weren’t a great many people reserving judgment, we could all go to bed early on Election Night. These are the people whom etiquette hates to prevent from talking politics. In theory, they could trade information and insights, and all come out the wiser.
The practice, however, is miserable. Gentle Readers report being hounded by acquaintances and strangers declaring and demanding views, berating the opposition and belittling their supporters.
So perhaps Miss Manners needn’t put a ban on discussing politics — but only on political polemics, posturing, prying and engaging others in conversations they do not want to have.
Ken, that link was downright spooky in its exacting definition. And so well written to. Thank you.
One more for Don’t Feed the Trolls Day”:
John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory
Pretty funny!
I didn’t know trolls had nipples.
Two hours and six minutes to go… You guys are doing great! Just hang in there a little while longer. I know you can do it.
(And those were some very nice links, Ken. Thanks. It’s freaky how well those articles predicted the recent activities here.)
If Ashcroft were here, he’d cover those nipples up with some blue drapes.
And thank you for responding to the secret signal, Ms. Manners. We needed you desperately.
Hey Kez, whre have you been?
Thank you for the kind words, Mr. Maynard. You’re very welcome.
Ashcroft should be here in about an hour, actually.
Everybody watch their nipples.
Chris,
I’ve been to the pharmacy.
Pharmacy…hmmmm.