730786 Views
200 Comments

About the trolls

Published July 12th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

 

image

There’s something of a troll problem in the comment discussions.    I think the BigGest offender has now finally been convinced to find another venue, but there will be more in the future who are bent on being disruptive.  

Short of moderating all comments before they’re published (meaning it may be hours before they become visible), the options are a bit limited in what we can do.  We have a few options but some trolls are persistent at getting around the obstacles.

One thing I wanted to make clear is that there is no opinion filter.  The whole spectrum of opinion is welcome here – and especially when commenters are representing a minority view (strongly religious, for example) I feel obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt.  What I am saying is, unpopular opinions are as welcome as popular opinions, but all comments must be somewhat civil. Commenters who are only disruptive will be asked to find a new venue. This last trouble-maker was ejected because he was trying to ruin the peace (and succeeding), not because he was religious.  Many people asking for his removal were in fact Christians who felt he was giving Christians a bad name with his ranting.

The question is what to do with the comments left behind.  It was argued that we should leave them in place to avoid any precedent of deleting comments.  This makes sense to me.

For those looking for a more structured discussion forum, the FSM Forums are available and run a much tighter ship.

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions about the troll and for your patience.



200 Responses to “About the trolls”

  1. Tasm10 says:

    Hi guys,

    A note on trolls: Feeling philosophical as I write this perhaps we should consider the origin of the troll. We have many metaphorical bridges to cross in life, and it is under such bridges like,”the bridge we’ll cross when we come to it” or “the bridge we are sometimes told to jump off”, that we find trolls. The more you build bridges between people in life the more trolls you will find. They are inextricably linked to the metaphorical architecture of life somehow. There is no way to truly eradicate the troll, you can only lure it to other intellectual feeding grounds where they feed off intellectual scraps regurgitating them into what they feel is a valid argument. Scientists term this behaviour as VPV, or Verbal Projectile Vomiting. Sometimes through means we do not fully understand people contract a similar for of VPV but with an attached socio-mental illness traditionally called Fundamentalism. I suspect that BG was actually a human-troll hybrid who had an especially virulent form of VPVF(VPV with Fundamentalism).

    R’Amen
    Tasm10

    • nun s equator says:

      if i m perceivd as verbaly pv, its because my head has been so adequately & thoroughly toyed with i m intended 2 b left an ineffectual heap perceived this way. ever make a complaint 2 th police about the police? the dr or pharmaceutical co regarding a med? once ur issues pile up, if u have enuf of them, there is NO advocacy 4 u & even if everything u say is tru u r but a flea on th dog & meant 2 b that way & here comes the flea killer solution…i m certain in various circles i m considered vomitous, but perhaps the internet ought not b designed as such a vomitorium…

      • nun s equator says:

        i cannot b the only 1…& that is even more unsettling & tragic. if u knew how many times persons have intentionally toyed with me 2 generate a respobse, then twist it 2 suit, u might begin 2 comprehend. ..begin. & its easy 2 wax philosophical about some1 u dont kno but only think u do…bits & pieces here.

      • nun s equator says:

        & i use the term complaint loosely…a report is a complaint depending i m TOLD…on the level of liability i signify 2 whom is receiving report…

    • nun s equator says:

      here is a link on pukeatory (u brought it up):

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2421/were-there-really-vomitoriums-in-ancient-rome

      (& i said pukeatory, not purgatory…

      i never had heard of the site…reminiscent of urban legends.

      I kno ive a digressing issue).

      as 4 trolling, i was just trying 2 comprende something about the formation of neural nets…every1 has got what contributes 2 these & if these r impacted by input issues or events & circumstances,,, there r times u come in2 contact with some whom have had nets patched & glued back 2gether a few more times than anticipated & they do not catch things so well, maybe…

      • nun s equator says:

        holy s-t, not THIS guy, tho. . .

        m sorry i told u it is like urban legends site, becuz its not. It is Cecils site.

        http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil

        u decide 4 urself, if u want…i m not instructing u about what 2 do with ur time.
        it is a suggestion merely. i m afraid 2 look up anything on ‘trolls’ there, because i may find
        it & have my feelings hurt all over again, but the guy does cover quite a wide array of topics & u DID bring up puke
        here, throwing me another bone, like the 1 u depict in ur drawing up there. its nice 2 kno i m closer 2 a pet or animatronic lawn ornament,
        than a conversationalist but we all have our crosses 2 bear (ive no idea wat that means. Ill bet that cecil does)

  2. nun s equator says:

    & u can delete my comments. i already said as much…i m deleted in other ways, rendered obsolete, so what is the difference?

  3. nun s equator says:

    is that a tighter pirate ship u run over there off the boardplank, because if u make it sound so tempting i might try 2 swim over there..in which case id probably drown…but deservedly, i am sure it will b considered…

  4. nun s equator says:

    stay tuned 4 my upcoming trilogy, my life as a troll…complete with all the staged discussions ive been lured in2…sponsored by tobacco co, pharmacy co, more…extra lo discount price of nothing

  5. nun s equator says:

    if posts r left 2 stand, ought they not b edited & removed so as 2 accurately reflect discussions? what happened 2 the absolute frivolity thread? & several posts r removed. cannot say precisely which, but it was done.

  6. English Teacher says:

    R.I.P. CotFSM, I’m sad to say, it’s going to hell in a handcart, none of the vets are posting regularly anymore and I miss them. Atsap, Tilted, Wulff, Drained, theFewtheProud, et al, where are you? Serious discussion has given way to an impenetrable wall of indecipherable crap and the fun and camaraderie that we all so enjoyed has gone; the site has been wrung dry. Thanks to Bobby we have almost certainly done a great deal for rational thinking and good sense, not to mention the involvement with KIVA; I pray to the FSM we don’t loose it.

    May the Sauce be with you all,

    The Reverend

    • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

      Sorry, wrong title.

    • Mal says:

      Everyone is still here, though I suspect they are sitting pensively in front of their monitors the way I do… just waiting for the next bit of confusing, unintelligible nonsense to dribble onto someone’s keyboard.

      It almost seems as if our standards for a “worthy opponent” have been risen. No longer do we indulge in pointless volley with people who are too ignorant to even speak plain English, much less present an argument with it. (Disclaimer: If your native language is not English, that last statement is definitely NOT directed at you. I understand all too well the challenges of communicating effectively in another language)

      Sadly, there’s just no challenge anymore.

      • Atsap Revol says:

        Correct, Mal. I’m finding nothing worth responding to lately. Our site has been hijacked by confusing, unintelligible nonsense. I take a look every day, and then find other things to occupy my time. Almost makes one yearn for another “Big Guy” to start posting…no not really!

        Keep the faith, all you loyal Pastafarians. Good times will roll again.

        May His Noodley Appendages enfold you and keep you safe from harm.
        Atsap Revol

        • Keith says:

          I just want someone to come on to the site and present a coherent argument as to why “intelligent design” can be regarded as science, not “because the buybul says so” or some half arsed quote about the human eye from the “Creationism” magazine.

        • nun s equator says:

          Keith just watch the movie ‘PAUL’, that may cheer u up…there’s a bit about the eye, in there.

          Now those 2 could do the jesus-as-vampire type themed film i contemplated
          (prob mistakenly like everythng else) & somehow not make it offensive..

        • nun s equator says:

          hijacked? thats a bit of steep terminology, 4 my weary brain…

          i could not hijack an empty toilet paper roll, let alone a ship of witty pirates…

    • stylusmobilus says:

      Just wondering, if all these posts equate to a mass request to do something about that impenetrable wall. I’m sure, if we pray hard enough, He will send His Noodly Appendage unto the Holy website and Punch through that wall with the Hammer of Complex Carbohydrate….

    • TiltedHorizon says:

      I still post but the general lack of updates to this site has me looking externally for religious discussion. I don’t think you are correct in thinking the camaraderie is gone though, as soon as someone does a drive-by hate post, the vets come out with guns blazing, raining Reason on would be attackers.

      I think we need an anything goes thread, somewhere we can just shoot the breeze or come up with reason number XXXXXXXX as to why ID makes no sense. The last fun conversation I had here was regarding Noah’s Arc and the details surrounding the myth. I would love to see a space for random discussion like this.

      • Mal says:

        I’ve been working on a paper for school… not so much a research paper or anything of that magnitude, but it eventually turned into that. It’s a “personal opinion” piece for a really laid back philosophy class. The professor wants to know our thoughts and what we present as evidence on any subject at all. I of course chose the idiocy of religion.

        Perhaps, when I’m done, I’ll submit it and see if Bobby will post it here. It’s bound to raise some discussion.

        • nun s equator says:

          Sorry…i made a suggestion about ur paper, but on another thread..i get lost reading around. I had suggested u call your paper something without certain connotations which would probably b inferenced from your current description…i was not meaning 2 mock ur views, which u r entitled 2. i hope u did not take it that way…

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          Is “Idiocy of Religion” the title of this paper? Regardless, it is sure to stir the pot. I’d love to see that here for discussion.

        • nun s equator says:

          TiltedH,
          yep thats th 1…i suggested he might consider alternately calling it somthng like ‘religion..not all its cracked up 2 b’ or along those lines…as (1 of my many non solicited contributions bound 4 the waste bin)…’idiocy of religion’ dunno if that his final title, but described the work in progress…willl probably go over like gangbusters & without this input of mine, , ,was just a thought…1 of 1,000 thoughts i could have kept 2 self (there i said it)…

        • Mal says:

          Tilted,

          I haven’t given it a title yet, but I don’t plan on pulling any punches when I do.

        • nun s equator says:

          Punches. Usually about pushing as opposed 2 pulling anything.

          My spouse had writ a paper in an art rel8d class, printed entirely on sheets of acetate. When he got it back, there was a sheet of paper between each page…he got points 4 creativity, but missed some other essentials..dont 4get 2 dot all the i’s & cross all th t’s, mal…

        • Wayne says:

          Yes, please, Mal. I’d like to see it.

    • Omnipotent Zombie says:

      There are have been many “hit and run” posters, but the amount of non-troll visitors have been few and far between. I’ve haven’t seen any juicy arguments from ID proponents in a while. At this point, even philosophical questions would be welcome. I think we will be rewarded by the FSM if we just remain patient. Maybe this site needs more Pirate speak? :)

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        People don’t want clarification; they want affirmation. Proponents of ID come up with their supposed arguments against evolution (they have ZERO facts to support Creation, so they think the debunking of evolution makes them a defacto winner) and get intellectually slapped around here and everywhere. Look at ANY court case involving Creationism. It’s always been a resounding defeat for the ID crowd. And so it is here, when they confront people who aren’t the sheeple of their church.

        • nun s equator says:

          AFFIRM-A-TIVE. (from flight of the conchords, robots)

          we have an article here u would sink ur teeth in2. ..
          it is by a renowned scientist associate we knew (he has since passed)
          whom was unabashedly anti darwin. there was a several page spread on
          him, talking on this; how he once was darwinian thruout his early career, but
          how th only logical proposition is intelligent design…i will c if i can locate it…he was a good
          person. i dont want 2 speak 4 him, being that he is on another metaphysical plane now, but he
          conducted that interview 2 share all this so, am going 2 give him the ‘floor’ here, via his own wrds, if i
          can locate article (we hav only,paper copy)?

        • nun s equator says:

          if i can find it in eletronic format, please b respectful (u need not agree)! remember, he has expired. he is not here 2 defend his position there4, altho i do not get, based on certain factors that he was intending 2. ..i believe his title was ‘organic chemist’, but he was well versed on a number of things & good 2 his cats & others…just 2 preface ..the posting of the article i m trying 2 loc8…

  7. nun s equator says:

    OK…i loc8d article 1, which gives basis for his background & article 2, which shows the man’s evolution in thinking…

    in the article we have, here, which as mentioned is on paper, he supports ejecting the teaching of darwin from schools, claiming it supports a fundamental atheism, or some such. ..

    Ive thus far, only found the precursor article & then an article that was a testament 2 his final position, as mentioned, but will still seek out th specific article mentioned. ..

    heres 2 u, phil. he was not shy about stirring up controversey & i doubt he wanted any1 2 have him rest in peace, he was far 2 active mentally & physically, 4 that. In the meantime:

    1) precursor: dacy.

    About science curriculum

    The Nov. 29 article by staff writer Pamela Winnick is a fair description of the arguments from both sides relating to the Department of Education’s proposed revision of the public school’s science curriculum (“Proposed Rules Boost Teaching Creationism”),but the Jan. 7 Forum article by Leonard Krishtalka (“Don’t Let Creationists Corrupt Science Standards”) is simply a rant about the subject.

    His comments do not rise to a level worthy of reply in this forum, except to note his ire centers on the consequences of substituting the Genesis creation account for Darwinian science,and that subsequently we should expect these “enemies of science” will try to change the value of pi to 3 and further such nonsense,none of which is,in the remotest sense,under consideration or discussion in Harrisburg.

    The science related to origins of life is negligible and totally irrelevant to the education of students in preparation for careers in modern biology,or for understanding the current status of the field.

    The theory posits that an ancient soup of organic chemicals (for which there is no geological evidence),self-assembled,by chance alone,into living matter. Proteins are some of the essential ingredients required for cellular activity. The simplest bacteria require 300 to 500 different proteins for minimal function,made from the required 20 different amino acids. It has been reliably demonstrated that self-assembly by chance,of a single small functional protein,of 100 amino acids length,could occur in one chance out of 1,000,000,0 — (500 zeros); for 300 different proteins,one chance out of a number with a million zeros. It is ludicrous to give this scenario serious consideration — counting all the atoms in the entire universe,the number has only 80 zeros! Of what value is this theory for the education of our children?

    The curriculum controversy can be finessed by omitting this origins part of the theory. But,if people insist on its inclusion,it surely should not be included as dogma: “That is how it happened!” but with proper scientific examination of its validity.

    An intriguing question: Why do some people insist it must be part of the curriculum,in its dogmatic form? At best,it is a theory about ancient natural history,3.5 to 4 billion years ago,and completely irrelevant to modern research and understanding.

    PHILIP S. SKELL State College

    Editor’s note: The writer is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry,Penn State University,and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    2)A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM (phil skells name appears with others); u may need adobe reader 2 view it:

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:IBGBrYrRX34J:www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf+state+college+magazine+phil+skell+darwin&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgw4antAKFE9zmVMH9UbulnTtBRqs85PCTO3L4hnItDqLbs6Fu1_isU8gi-ZLy_0FR3jDJYC4ldnhX2fsjyrxKC7P-otVzCZwWlU–pWyiI1-HrGeziskRx75OaGXX8TKYtikzD&sig=AHIEtbRKbuHWezh4crjvCUJSelJlWV3HEA

    ALT, here:

    http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

    (the 1st, a quik view, the 2nd, downloaded pdf version)

    • nun s equator says:

      P SKELLS name appears second line down on leftmore side,,,in the dissent from darwin article…

      • nun s equator says:

        another (still not 1 i was seeking)

        http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

        & he is featured prominently in the following article:

        (excerpt) “”The NAS oversells the scientific importance of evolution. With a picture of a cute baby chimp on its cover, the NAS’s new Science, Evolution, and Creationism booklet states, “Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.” This sweeping statement does not speak for all NAS members. As NAS member Philip Skell wrote in The Scientist in 2005:

        “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry…”"

        c that, here:

        http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1452

        were phil still present, i have no doubt he would b interested in having a lively debate with any1 seriously invested in discussing the topic, which i am way under task 4…i may have ranked here & there on science testing, but never developed any real critical thinking skills, never attained an education

        • nun s equator says:

          Oops
          much beyond some basic concepts i 4get much, of (& missed a lot of schooling…due 2 health reasons)

        • nun s equator says:

          Maybe this ought b moved over by/ 2 the board on the LSEA/ zack story…but u mentioned this, here…

        • nun s equator says:

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Skell

          the man was a genius.

        • nun s equator says:

          & am not calling him a ‘troll’, by posting here…

        • nun s equator says:

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

        • nun s equator says:

          we never discussed this with him mind u, when he was alive…the closest we got was him providing us a copy of the interview we have here on paper…so, just 2 clarify i m merely providing info. If u disagree or resemble any statements, u cannot take it up with me because i m clueless RE the intricacies of any of this, & u cannot take it up with skell, because he is no longer present (altho, depending upon what u feel regarding the bounds of space & time, he could b observing this, somehow…4 all we know…)

        • nun s equator says:

          I retract th comment that there were no discussions had with p skell…the 2 of them, he just reminded me, used 2 have ‘ go arounds ‘ 2gether, concerning this…we tend 2 agree with Phils original premises & y i never responded personally when husband brought home the given the article but, since his passing have reflected that i hope he got his answers 1 way or another…because he was a nice man & if its possible 2 learn of the keys 2 the universe by exploring them, that is a noble venture…tho i do not hold that by virtue of passing into the next realm as a different assortment of energy somehow magically will achieve a state of perfection & allow 4 all the answers…it is just i think, what he would have wanted & maybe not such a bad thing…in consideration of all the things people hope, for, on this planet…

        • nun s equator says:

          CORRECTION.

          I retract th comment that there were no discussions had with p skell…the 2 of them, husband just reminded me, used 2 have ‘ go arounds ‘ 2gether, concerning this…we tend 2 agree with Phils original premises & y i never responded personally when husband brought home the given the article but, since his passing have reflected that i hope he got his answers 1 way or another…because he was a nice man & if its possible 2 learn of the keys 2 the universe by exploring them, that is a noble venture…tho i do not hold that by virtue of passing into the next realm as a different assortment of energy somehow magically will achieve a state of perfection & allow 4 all the answers…it is just i think, what he would have wanted & maybe not such a bad thing…in consideration of all the things people hope, for, on this planet…

        • nun s equator says:

          DARWIN IN THE NEWS

          http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/uk-scientists-lost-darwin-fossils-060025391.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

          Is this 4 real?? If so…wow.

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      a. I find it amusing that someone argues against the possibility of something that exists in abundance. If the origin of a simple bacteria is so impossible, what is the possibility of an omnipotent being having no beginning???
      b. The “by chance” argument AGAIN? Natural selection is NOT chance.
      c. Proteins have been found in space! Seems there’s a prediliction for their formation.
      d. “proper scientific examination of its validity”. Exactly! Evolution has been proven by multiple scientific disciplines, some of which (genome mapping) didn’t exist in Darwin’s day. Now give us some scientific examination used by ID. Anything? Anything?

      • nun s equator says:

        “if the origin of a simple bacteria is so impossibl, what’s the possibility of an omnipotent being having no beginning?”

        i think ive been starting 2 question 2 what degree omnipotent equals intelligent application of powers & what defines intelligence, let alone associated with the concept of an interventional being concerned with our better interests on an individual level…perhaps this province lay with us, more i suspect, within & between, us; judgement, awareness, intelligence & power are all assigned 2 god…i do not know that bacteria have the ability 2 discern anything, but on a grander scheme plays a role bacteria do not inherently have any awareness of nor capability/hope of comprehending…

        If there is a god, i mentioned thought masses…whom is 2 say we did not collectively create, by intense concentration & focus, this, instead of the other way around? we also have certain expectations & assignments with relation 2 god which go unfulfilled 4 many, many individuals, so what does this say of god? that quote the meek shall inherit the earth seems a hollow promise considering what has been becoming of it, in any event; if god so cares z& cherishes us, here distinctly on this marble, y r we capable of contemplating life on another planet & have actively sought it out?

        just some considerations.
        of no real consequence.
        just so i can support u in defining me as a troll…

        • nun s equator says:

          I will say this. If there is or is not a god, however its defined, i could not possibly have the final word & do not pretend 2 b an authority, but its safe 2 say humans r impacting the planet in ways other species dont…accross pa, ohio, elsewhere, there is a procedure called fracking going on, 2 extract natural gas from shale deposits. It is said among other things this could play a contributing role in earthquakes/tremors. What do u suppose underground nuclear testing could b doing, i wonder? nothing great. ..thats man, not god, doing this..

  8. nun s equator says:

    …& do tend 2 think, if all the answers regarding this were so simple & defined, it would b absurd & selfish of some grand designer 2 not have reported in by now…on the topic…of his own existence, no less! maybe god is there, but has nothing nice 2 say…dunno, but his silence is DEAFENING…

Leave a Reply