Matthew Brown wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the word is being used in this way, it conveys less meaning.
That's what it means, irrelevant of how much meaning it conveys.
I disagree that's what it means. It may be what it means to SOME PEOPLE, myself not among them. It's also the case that if you use a word with ambiguous meaning, either meaning may be assumed by some. Thus, perhaps, it's a bad choice of word; it will be interpreted by some as being an accusation of bad faith and deliberate provocation for the purposes of amusement.
The problem is that 'troll' has become such a loaded word on Wikipedia that it is now best avoided.
"A loaded word"? As opposed to... I don't know... say... rape?
Oskar, I'm trying to understand this comment of yours. I neither used the word 'rape' nor compared or opposed the use of 'troll' to the use of 'rape'.
You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to add to it.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And while this is all going along, the -real- trolls (those who throw these idiotic outing theories out there, whether they're true or not) are eating very well. Can we all please just say that nothing very good is going to come of this discussion at this point, and it's best just to drop it?