<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MatthewClement:
Doc2Be, the reason that I didn't send a message to VicOsaki, R&R, or BooBooKitty doesn't imply my support of their views. It implies that I choose my battles.
If, in the course of everyday life, someone says something I find offensive, it certainly changes my view of that person. But I don't make it my business to change anyone's views. Right or wrong, they're entitled to their views. I think less of them as people, and it influences whether I interact with that person again.
When I invite someone to dinner who spouts Nazi propaganda, I may choose to argue, or I may remain silent, deciding that nothing I say will ever change his views. It's a battle that's not worth fighting. But he'll never be invited back to dinner again.
In America, the right to hold bigoted views is constitutionally protected. People may think and say hateful, ugly things, but unless they act upon those emotions, they've broken no laws. It's part of living in a free society.
You will, I'm certain, make a good lawyer. You've got an eye for the letter of the law. Unfortunately, this is not the same as understanding the spirit of the law.
We're a community here, warts and all. Flyertalk is a wonderful resource and a place where I enjoy being. Right now, you're a little bit like that neo-Nazi at my dinner party. You've upset me, I've given up trying to change you, and I'm asking others here not to invite you back to the dinner party until you can behave with the other guests.
I stand by my advice in my very first post to you on this topic:
My advice here on "trolling" wasn't directed at you. I realise now that like the bigots I've discussed above, you'll continue to rant and rave regardless. It's a shame you're not a bigger man than that, but so be it.
My advice here was directed at the other readers here, urging restraint and hopefully allowing this whole pissing contest to come to its natural conclusion.
QED
</font>
Interesting, that you again wish to identify me at the "troll" for I have only responded to what passes for a feeble attempt as an attack on my logic.
You on the other hand, appear to attack my motives. In another thread, you likened me to a Neo-Nazi -- Now, that certainly is use of a "Straw Man" if there ever was one --
but I don't expect you to abide by your or anyone else's rules.
For instance:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MatthewClement:
I posted, in another thread, the phrase "do not feed the trolls." It became apparent that many people on this board are not familiar with the term, so I thought I'd include the following from The Subtle Art of Trolling:
What Is A Troll?
The WWW gives this as a definition:
troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling";, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.</font>
My statement concerning anti-Semitism was in direct contradiction to Randy's statement that the matter had been resolved and his statement that he had only had 1 complaint of same in this forum. My post was to serve notice that the matter was not at an end, and that this should serve to advise him of that fact.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining comments given above:
In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings. </font>
My posts have been
in responseto others posts who might fall within in that category, if they did not believe their own anti-Semitic drivel. I do not see them as having "trolled" for a reaction, so much as having uttered sentiments, nevertheless, if they were trolling, it is quite characteristic of you to complain about my response, and not the posts that had generated the furor in the first place.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups:
People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble.</font>
The only attention that I had wished was for Randy to be on notice that all was not resolved by his intervention.
Now, this brings me to my final point. You have likened me to a "Neo-Nazi." Not only is that wrong, but it is morally repugnant for you to compare me to someone who holds the views that I have attempted to expose on these boards.
I will restate some of your citations, just so that you "get it":
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. </font>
and
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, </font>
You are correct, although I doubt that you would fully understand why. However, you might start by taking a long, hard look in the mirror.