I have a less narrow definition of a troll (I guess that would be wider definition...lol). I think there are people that only post to get a reaction. Singer is clearly the worst case of this I have run across. He freely admits he is only looking for certain reactions. Others like LarryS from our previous site, disguise their intent with words like "lively debate". These 'trolls' are not after debate or discussion. They are after attention...plain and simple. Their life is apparently so empty, this is how they get their jollies. I put Alan, in the same class as these guys. Alan is a little more sneaky though as he is often able to hide his real intent of trolling and because he is much politer about it, it comes off as more mild. But it is that same 'trolling' mentality and need.Originally Posted by redietz
Now, I want to be clear that "naysayers and non-believers" of AP or AP claims are not all trolls, IMO. That isn't a label I put on someone just because they are a non-believer of AP or disagree with me on any topic. People have the right to believe what they like and even question claims. I am more than fine with that. But when these so called non-believers don't even believe what they are saying (Singer) or manipulate what is said and even worse photos (Mendelson), to try to discredit someone...that crosses the line into trolling for me.
And when someone has a history of doing nothing but these behaviors, making it clear their intent is to only troll and be disruptive, I don't think they should be welcome on any forum regardless of the forum topic. It's not fair to the owner/administrators of the forum and it's not fair to the members that want to participate in a constructive manner.
I hate sinking to the level of these trolls with the nastiness and name-calling. But why should I let some bitter old dude (and they almost all are) with an empty life, in need of attention, ruin a forum for me?
Reply With Quote