3 ms·
"to an extent these posts are a little testing, a little spiteful, to see how knee-jerk people's reactions are really going to be" Isn't that kind of the defin
by icey 18y ago
"to an extent these posts are a little testing, a little spiteful, to see how knee-jerk people's reactions are really going to be"
Isn't that kind of the definition of trolling? It seems like you're kind of bringing it on yourself if what you're saying here is true.
- swombat 18y agoNo, I don't think it qualifies as trolling if you're defending your beliefs. Trolling is when you make a statement that you know to be wrong for the purpose of eliciting excited responses. The New Hacker's Dictionary defines trolling as: [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. Some people claim that the troll is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. (from http://www.ccil.org/jargon/jargon_35.html#SEC42 http://www.ccil.org/jargon/jargon_35.html#SEC42 ) I don't think I'm doing that.
- omouse 18y agoYep, you're definitely doing it. You're resorting to the definition of the word, you've admitted it, you're now denying it only to gain more of a reaction.