Trolls in "The Clinic"...

[Anonymous]

i agree 100%. there is nothing more boring than a group that is in agreement.

This is the internets, that is never going to happen.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I am not trying to antagonize the mods here, I am merely pointing out that there are several people who get called trolls, and are then defended as only having counter opinions who are now admitting that they are merely posting things to incite a reaction and not to actually have a discussion because they all believe that Armstrong is guilty as hell, they just like to poke people who are a bit passionate about him getting what he deserves for it...you can call that whatever you like, but a rose by any other name...

I don't understand why calling someone a troll is unacceptable while calling someone a 'hater' or a 'fanboy' is fine. I don't get why it is ok to accuse a poster of having a 'vendetta' against rider 'x' is fine, while accusing someone of having an agenda in favour of a given rider is not ok.

 

[ChrisE]

I am quoting this from a thread in the Clinic because all of this "don't call people trolls because it is against forum rules" is interesting in light of the admission presented here:



Hey, I respect the admission because I respect honesty. What is however VERY apparent there is that this idea that "many of those guys are just expressing opinions you don't like and are not trolling" isn't quite as meritorious as it is presented to be. There are several people in that thread admitting that they don't care one second about whether or not Armstrong is guilty. They only care about winding up people who dislike Armstrong.

Now, the best advice to those getting wound up by their posts is to ignore them. The second best is to respond in kind. I choose the latter many times, and I do a pretty good job sometimes. It doesn't endear me to many people, but then again, I cannot count the number of nights I have tossed and turned in bed worrying about what other people think because I have never done it, and 0 isn't a number.

I am not trying to antagonize the mods here, I am merely pointing out that there are several people who get called trolls, and are then defended as only having counter opinions who are now admitting that they are merely posting things to incite a reaction and not to actually have a discussion because they all believe that Armstrong is guilty as hell, they just like to poke people who are a bit passionate about him getting what he deserves for it...you can call that whatever you like, but a rose by any other name...

I almost replied to you in the original thread about this.

Before I reply in depth, and since uspostal was replying to my post do you lump me into the category of "several people who get called trolls, and are then defended as only having counter opinions who are now admitting that they are merely posting things to incite a reaction and not to actually have a discussion because they all believe that Armstrong is guilty as hell, they just like to poke people who are a bit passionate about him getting what he deserves for it"?

 

[Anonymous]

I almost replied to you in the original thread about this.

Before I reply in depth, and since uspostal was replying to my post do you lump me into the category of "several people who get called trolls, and are then defended as only having counter opinions who are now admitting that they are merely posting things to incite a reaction and not to actually have a discussion because they all believe that Armstrong is guilty as hell, they just like to poke people who are a bit passionate about him getting what he deserves for it"?

Yes. Just understand that I don't really have a problem with trolling. (I admittedly troll) I have a problem with a few instances where the mods claim someone is not trolling who obviously is trolling. I referred specifically to the post you made regarding only wanting to see Armstrong get off so that you could then throw it in the face of everyone who wants to see him convicted. I consider that trolling because for someone like me who does want to see him punished for his crimes because of the things he has done to other people (I realize you do not believe he did anything that warrants that, and I disagree) I do not hold my belief to win an argument or prove anyone wrong.

I wasn't calling for any of you to be banned or anything like that. I was merely pointing out that the whole "they are just presenting a counter argument" is belied by the fact that the argument is not presented to counter the merits of anything. It is presented, as uspostal points out, to incite a reaction. You can cut that any way you want, but that is what trolling is. Trust me, I speak from personal experience.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes. Just understand that I don't really have a problem with trolling. (I admittedly troll) I have a problem with a few instances where the mods claim someone is not trolling who obviously is trolling. I referred specifically to the post you made regarding only wanting to see Armstrong get off so that you could then throw it in the face of everyone who wants to see him convicted. I consider that trolling because for someone like me who does want to see him punished for his crimes because of the things he has done to other people (I realize you do not believe he did anything that warrants that, and I disagree) I do not hold my belief to win an argument or prove anyone wrong.

I wasn't calling for any of you to be banned or anything like that. I was merely pointing out that the whole "they are just presenting a counter argument" is belied by the fact that the argument is not presented to counter the merits of anything. It is presented, as uspostal points out, to incite a reaction. You can cut that any way you want, but that is what trolling is. Trust me, I speak from personal experience.

Counter argument? I was not making an argument in that closing part of that post; I was making a point on how I feel about the whole thing. I did not post that to incite a reaction, though I knew it would just because of the makeup of the regulars in here.

Should I edit my feelings on a subject so the people won't get upset? It's trolling because I would take pleasure in something that would pis you and others off? You have the power to determine how my post will effect you, and the following 5 pages after I posted it went pretty typical for the clinic. The nature of those subsequent posts was up to you and others, not me.

What if you post something that causes me to flip out (that'll never happen, but let's pretend)? Does that mean you are a troll? Or does that mean I am a fanboy or some other derogatory term because you have the mob on your side? Mob rules on the definition of troll? I didn't realize legitimacy of opinion was a democratic process. I know you don't believe that either, so WTH?

I really don't understand why you guys don't just ignore opinions you don't agree with or wish to engage. That would be alot easier, you know, and this whole argument will go away. It's really not that hard. But then it would be one less thing to direct our emotion toward, and we can never have too many of those things you know.

 

[Anonymous]

Counter argument? I was not making an argument in that closing part of that post; I was making a point on how I feel about the whole thing. I did not post that to incite a reaction, though I knew it would just because of the makeup of the regulars in here.

Should I edit my feelings on a subject so the people won't get upset? It's trolling because I would take pleasure in something that would pis you and others off? You have the power to determine how my post will effect you, and the following 5 pages after I posted it went pretty typical for the clinic. The nature of those subsequent posts was up to you and others, not me.

What if you post something that causes me to flip out (that'll never happen, but let's pretend)? Does that mean you are a troll? Or does that mean I am a fanboy or some other derogatory term because you have the mob on your side? Mob rules on the definition of troll? I didn't realize legitimacy of opinion was a democratic process. I know you don't believe that either, so WTH?

I really don't understand why you guys don't just ignore opinions you don't agree with or wish to engage. That would be alot easier, you know, and this whole argument will go away. It's really not that hard. But then it would be one less thing to direct our emotion toward, and we can never have too many of those things you know.

And you could easily do the same, but neither of us does that. I don't do it because I don't mind confrontation. Some people don't like it, I am not one of those people, and neither are you. So (and I don't mean this antagonistically), save that line for someone else. I have a long history of not ignoring things as do you. If I thought I needed to change that, I would. I don't. Why should I? I give as good as I get. I am okay with breaking even. You are waiting around so that if Armstrong is acquitted, you can shove it in people's faces (I will be there because as I have said, I don't have a problem taking my medicine...though I imagine that there are some people who will duck the forum for awhile in that event). Why not just ignore opinions or people you don't agree with? Why shove it in anyone's face? You could just ignore them. (see how ridiculous that sounds?)

As for the part about you not inciting. You cannot be serious. I freely admit that I troll the heck out of people sometimes. If you cannot admit the same, that is you. Again, I don't have a problem with admitting my actions. They are what the are, and saying they are something else is pointless because even I don't believe it.

Hey, maybe we just see our individual actions differently?

I am not going to get in a long protracted discussion about this. You and I have gone at it in the past, and it is mentally exhausting because you are quite adept at conflict. Plus, I like reading your posts because they are so frustrating to people. Like I said, I am not saying anything but what I see as the truth. I am not advocating any action on the part of anyone, including you, in relation to my views.

 

[ChrisE]

And you could easily do the same, but neither of us does that. I don't do it because I don't mind confrontation. Some people don't like it, I am not one of those people, and neither are you. So (and I don't mean this antagonistically), save that line for someone else. I have a long history of not ignoring things as do you. If I thought I needed to change that, I would. I don't. Why should I? I give as good as I get. I am okay with breaking even. You are waiting around so that if Armstrong is acquitted, you can shove it in people's faces (I will be there because as I have said, I don't have a problem taking my medicine...though I imagine that there are some people who will duck the forum for awhile in that event). Why not just ignore opinions or people you don't agree with? Why shove it in anyone's face? You could just ignore them. (see how ridiculous that sounds?)

As for the part about you not inciting. You cannot be serious. I freely admit that I troll the heck out of people sometimes. If you cannot admit the same, that is you. Again, I don't have a problem with admitting my actions. They are what the are, and saying they are something else is pointless because even I don't believe it.

Hey, maybe we just see our individual actions differently?

I am not going to get in a long protracted discussion about this. You and I have gone at it in the past, and it is mentally exhausting because you are quite adept at conflict. Plus, I like reading your posts because they are so frustrating to people. Like I said, I am not saying anything but what I see as the truth. I am not advocating any action on the part of anyone, including you, in relation to my views.

Fair enough. But to clarify the bolded part of my quoted part in your reply, I should have said "why don't you ignore the posts you don't agree with that get you so worked up". I don't ignore those posts because I don't let what other people think bother me, even if what they think is contrary to my basic sense of right or wrong. IF their opinion turns into some type of action that personally effects me, like politics, that is where I ratchet up the emotion but only to a certain degree. But then, I wouldn't call somebody with differing political views that are hurting others by their short sighted and ignorant positions "trolls". Lance Armstrong isn't on my scale of things that pis me off. Maybe that is the real issue in defining what a troll is in the clinic.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Fair enough. But to clarify the bolded part of my quoted part in your reply, I should have said "why don't you ignore the posts you don't agree with that get you so worked up". I don't ignore those posts because I don't let what other people think bother me, even if what they think is contrary to my basic sense of right or wrong. IF their opinion turns into some type of action that personally effects me, like politics, that is where I ratchet up the emotion but only to a certain degree. But then, I wouldn't call somebody with differing political views that are hurting others by their short sighted and ignorant positions "trolls". Lance Armstrong isn't on my scale of things that pis me off. Maybe that is the real issue in defining what a troll is in the clinic.

Don't bother trying to identify one because troll rules are just made to be broken.

My nit to pick is sometimes the Trolls try to pass really bad argument as fact. I will typically call out the subtler ones. I stay away from personal attacks.

 

[pedaling squares]

My nit to pick is sometimes the Trolls try to pass really bad argument as fact.

I wish that only a few members did that! I should put together a list of members based on how often they attempt to pass bad argument as fact.

0 - 1 ........ Never posts false claims. Credibility is beyond reproach.
2 - 3 ........ Occasional false post submitted, but typically posts credible data.
4 - 6 ........ Use of bad facts suggests a serious anomaly in the member's thinking.
7 - 8 ........ Member is not to be trusted. Data indicates a devious attempt to pollute the forum with bad facts.
9 ............. Member is part of an organized lying program. Pays a communication strategist to pollute other cycling forums with lies.
10 ........... Is this guy still allowed to post here? Stupid mods. Member has more lives than Klodi.

 

[Cal_Joe]

I wish that only a few members did that! I should put together a list of members based on how often they attempt to pass bad argument as fact.

0 - 1 ........ Never posts false claims. Credibility is beyond reproach.
2 - 3 ........ Occasional false post submitted, but typically posts credible data.
4 - 6 ........ Use of bad facts suggests a serious anomaly in the member's thinking.
7 - 8 ........ Member is not to be trusted. Data indicates a devious attempt to pollute the forum with bad facts.
9 ............. Member is part of an organized lying program. Pays a communication strategist to pollute other cycling forums with lies.
10 ........... Is this guy still allowed to post here? Stupid mods. Member has more lives than Klodi.

That is pretty damn funny.

 

[Granville57]

Frame that one!

 

[usedtobefast]

Squares, nice!

 

[Anonymous]

I wish that only a few members did that! I should put together a list of members based on how often they attempt to pass bad argument as fact.

0 - 1 ........ Never posts false claims. Credibility is beyond reproach.
2 - 3 ........ Occasional false post submitted, but typically posts credible data.
4 - 6 ........ Use of bad facts suggests a serious anomaly in the member's thinking.
7 - 8 ........ Member is not to be trusted. Data indicates a devious attempt to pollute the forum with bad facts.
9 ............. Member is part of an organized lying program. Pays a communication strategist to pollute other cycling forums with lies.
10 ........... Is this guy still allowed to post here? Stupid mods. Member has more lives than Klodi.

Instant classic!

Lets not talk about where I fall on the list though...

 

[L29205]

Instant classic!

Lets not talk about where I fall on the list though...

Well I hear that the members trolling passport is to be leaked to the road bike review forum in the next dew days

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Old and banned trolls don't ever die....

...they just find another bridge to live under. Take our old "friend" Hampsten88, he's now posting on another cycling website that has a board dedicated to all things related to cycling and pharmacy. He's been tolerable, albeit a bit snide, so far. But I predict another eventual meltdown.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

...they just find another bridge to live under. Take our old "friend" Hampsten88, he's now posting on another cycling website that has a board dedicated to all things related to cycling and pharmacy. He's been tolerable, albeit a bit snide, so far. But I predict another eventual meltdown.

WoW nose....... You might be trolling with your Trolling UPDATE!

 

[Cobblestoned]

Wow, in these days I even keep on to receiving hate-PMs.
Thats so awesome.
Hate is strong in these days.
There are even users who just register to direct their hate towards me.
wuaaaaaah

Come on people. Is that all you have ?
What a freakshow, lol