Jimbo wrote:
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
And one clever way to censor is to raise the 'pedophile troll' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgement.
Sarojini Naidu
Sarojini Naidu wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
And one clever way to censor is to raise the 'pedophile troll' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgement.
You're trolling.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Sarojini Naidu wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
And one clever way to censor is to raise the 'pedophile troll' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgement.
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:53 PM, SPUI wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Sarojini Naidu wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
And one clever way to censor is to raise the 'pedophile troll' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgement.
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:53 PM, SPUI wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Sarojini Naidu wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
And one clever way to censor is to raise the 'pedophile troll' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgement.
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
Red herrings are a nice catch for a troller. :-)
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SPUI stated for the record:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Sarojini Naidu wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
And one clever way to censor is to raise the 'pedophile troll' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgement.
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
<sing style="tune: out-of;"> I'm a troll, he's a troll, she's a troll, we're a troll; wouldn't you like to be a troll too? </sing>
- -- Sean Barrett | There's very little advice in men's magazines, sean@epoptic.org | because men think, "I know what I'm doing. | Just show me somebody naked!" --Jerry Seinfeld
On 4/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SPUI stated for the record:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
....
You're trolling.
You're trolling.
<sing style="tune: out-of;"> I'm a troll, he's a troll, she's a troll, we're a troll; wouldn't you like to be a troll too? </sing>
Sean Barrett | There's very little advice in men's magazines, sean@epoptic.org | because men think, "I know what I'm doing. | Just show me somebody naked!" --Jerry Seinfeld
<song> You may say that I'm a troll But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the wiki will be as one
Imagine no articles I wonder if you can No need for deleting or reverting A brotherhood of editors Imagine all the writers Sharing all the words. </song>
Wait, wrong song?
~maru
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:16:37 -0700, you wrote:
<sing style="tune: out-of;"> I'm a troll, he's a troll, she's a troll, we're a troll; wouldn't you like to be a troll too? </sing>
<sing style="Sam_and_Dave"> He's a troll man, he's a troll man... He's a troll man, he's a troll man... </sing> Guy (JzG)