Misquoting people

[Bill3000]

Then its a good thing we're point out to you that it does count as baiting, and as such will be considered trolling.

But it's not baiting anymore so than the rest of the thread is baiting. A thread that is the normal lame capitalism vs. socialism hatefest is already a cesspool of negative attention; these responses arn't going to elict an angry response anymore than the rest of the posts.

This would fall under flaming, not trolling; flaming isn't necessarily a personal attack. This would clearly be a hostile and insulting action toward the person at who it is directed.

 

[ainwood]

But it's not baiting anymore so than the rest of the thread is baiting.

So you agree that it is baiting. Good.

 

[Rambuchan]

er what? please explain oh interesting one.

There was a time, not that long ago, when warnings were handed out for stating your political views, even in quite a restrained and matter of fact fashion. It was considered "trolling", because apparently some folk might have disagreed with these views. Herein lies the slipperiness of the term "trolling" and it's ability to stifle genuine debate when used to guide mod policy.

Trolling is trying to make someone angry without actually flaming them. There are many ways to do it, and this is one of them.

When some people get angry and agitated at the drop of a hat, then some posters become trolls easier than in other situations. In other words, the degree of "trolliness" is defined by how thin skinned a particular poster is. That's shaky ground for a definition.

 

[Fifty]

You guys (Bill, Rambu, etc.) are trying to target precise conceptual definitions of flaming and trolling when there are none. They're just too context-sensitive.

 

[Mango]

But capitalism is already a cesspool

I stopped reading here. You sir, are un-American.

 

[Angst]

Wait, what?

oktenchar!

Brilliant. I had to laugh. xD

 

[Zhuge_Liang]

I still don't understand this......... can someone define this broader?

Thank you.........

 

[Birdjaguar]

You guys (Bill, Rambu, etc.) are trying to target precise conceptual definitions of flaming and trolling when there are none. They're just too context-sensitive.

Yes, they are taking a "philosphical" approach.

 

[Dann]

But... but... but... misquoting other people is fun.

 

[Fifty]

Yes, they are taking a "philosphical" approach.

This would be a good example of the context-sensitivity of trolling! Probably even subtle enough to avoid detection. Very good, BJ!

 

[LightFang]

I still don't understand this because I am stupid! D: Durrrr

There's an example for you.

P.S. That was all in jest. Don't get angry.

 

[Whomp]

Enough misquoting since it's bordering on spamming now...

Some of you wouldn't understand subtlety if it was smacked you in the face, huh? [rhetorical so don't answer btw]

 

[b etor]

misquoting can be very hilarious!!!

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

If you guys keep this up, this thread will be closed and another one will warn everybody here not to do it again.

 

[b etor]

keep this up

for sure.