On 8/28/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.

On 8/28/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > Marc Riddell wrote > >> The word "trolling", the phrase "to troll", and what >> defines "a troll" all seem to have different meanings to different people in >> the Community. One person, writing in this thread, defined it as "stirring >> shit up". > > A troll, to translate, is a provocateur. There are numerous ways of doing the > provocation. I suppose the classification is roughly into those who value the > attention, and those who value the mischief. Either way, the non-feeding > advice is always the soundest. I'm afraid meditations on essentialism for > trollness, tenable or not, fail that test.

It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.

On 8/27/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: IMO, sometimes speculating on motives is quite productive. Although it need not be turned into posted words. For one thing, it may inform as to whether responding to what someone's saying may be productive, or not.

It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.