This is not a Regards, Shodan pitting

[Peanut Gallery]

This is a Do Not Feed The Trolls mini-rant.

The SDMB sure does love to entertain some trolls. I want to pit all the people who bother to continue this tradition. This isn't specifically about Regards, Shodan. But he is surely a top contender for Trolling-est Doper, and the subject of today's DNFTT PSA. I don't mean to lump all conservative posters in together as trolls, either. There are enough who can express an intelligent opinion to outnumber the trolls. That's a rare thing, and part of why I love the SDMB. BUT

We could use less of this. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10498381&postcount=227)

This is not debate. This is somebody caught in a trap. * This is what Regards, Shodan and his breed are all about. Making you waste your time trying to unravel a ball of yarn that they are actively tying more knots into as you work. It is a crack up to watch the first few times. But after a while, you notice that it is a pattern that clogs up thread after thread around here. They aren't dumb, so you aren't actually correcting them or enlightening them. It is an intentional routine they perform.

Imagine the things that could be accomplished with all the time these brilliant minds spend playing semantic games with the Dope's trolls. You people are better this.

New Rule: No more wasting time refuting the likes of Regards, Shodan. IGNORE THEM ALL. We can't change them. They love trolling the SDMB, and have been refining it longer than many of us have been posting. But what we can do is read right by them. They're a bratty child pulling at your pant-leg during a conversation with another adult. Just give them a pat on their pointy little heads and scoot them along toward the playground. If the poster is Regards, Shodan (we can identify the rest as we go, if it pleases), you can safely assume that you are not going to get Integrity with that post. You are going to get some backward tricksy nonsense dragging back and forth for a page in the middle of an otherwise good thread.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

*If I really need to break down the stupidity going on there, I can post again later I guess... It seems rather blatant.

[ivan astikov]

Have you got a better example? That one didn't really fire me up.

[Ethilrist]

Sorry, but we went so long here without being able to call people trolls that, now that it's okay, if I want to feed the dang things, I'm gonna. How else are we going to have things we can call trolls?

[Rhythmdvl]

I'm glad he stopped putting Regards, Shodan at the bottom of every post, largely in response to other poster's requests. He didn't have to do it, and as noted in the various pits of the practice it wasn't universally irksome. I think using "Regards" in the Pit title is kind of cheesy (is "kind of cheesy" too wimpy for the Pit?), detracts/distracts from the actual point of the thread, and given that he's stopped, is a bit irrelevant.

[askeptic]

Meh. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly and Shodan's gotta be an idiot.

But let me get this straight, you are demanding that we ignore him with a text wall of a post dedicated to him?

He rarely, if ever, merits more than a single line drive by insult.

[Q.E.D.]

Look, for the 88.5 billionth time (that's the actual number; I counted them), just because you don't like the things someone posts or the way they post them does not mean they're necessarily a troll. As much as I dislike the idea of more rules, I wish they'd reinstate the troll-calling one just so I don't have to hear one idiot call another idiot a troll anymore.

[Shodan]

Look, for the 88.5 billionth time (that's the actual number; I counted them), just because you don't like the things someone posts or the way they post them does not mean they're necessarily a troll. As much as I dislike the idea of more rules, I wish they'd reinstate the troll-calling one just so I don't have to hear one idiot call another idiot a troll anymore.

Did you Google that?

[Ensign Edison]

Dear fuckface,

Shodan is not a troll, and where the fuck do you get off telling me who to ignore? How arrogant and petty do you have to be to announce to a whole message board that it's a moral imperative to shun somebody you don't like?

love,
Seth

[Cervaise]

He's not a troll. He's a robot.

[mhendo]

I disagree with Shodan on just about everything, or at least everything that matters. And i sometimes find his debating style to be, ahem, somewhat less than honest or reasonable. He probably feels the same way about me.

But, without reading the thread linked in the OP, i feel confident in saying that he's not a troll. He seems pretty well convinced of the merits of his political positions, and the arguments he uses to support them. He's never struck as someone who is here merely to get a reaction out of people, even though that is sometimes the result of his contributions.

[Shodan]

I disagree with Shodan on just about everything, or at least everything that matters. And i sometimes find his debating style to be, ahem, somewhat less than honest or reasonable. He probably feels the same way about me.No, not really.

He's never struck as someone who is here merely to get a reaction out of people, even though that is sometimes the result of his contributions.
Correct, IMO. With the caveat that sometimes I am fully aware that posting something will cause the Usual Suspects to go berserk, and still post it for the sheer entertainment value of watching the meltdowns.

I don't consider that trolling, but it verges on feeding the trolls.

[LouisB]

I like the "Regards, Shodan" thing. I think we should all begin using "Regards, (Insert user name) in our signature line. But, it was my idea so I'm gonna let someone else be the first (next) to do it.

Shodan is not a troll.

[yojimbo]

Like most others here I think he's many things but troll isn't one of them.

And keep your rules to yourself. If you don't want to do something then don't do it but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions and choices.

Ta

yoji

[Enola Gay]

Minor hijack, but can someone post the official definition of the term "troll"?

I've surmised through other posters' discussions that it refers to an annoying fuck who disrupts threads. But then someone will come along and say "soandso isn't technically a troll, he's just an annoying fuck who disrupts threads". So what is the real definition?

(btw this is a general question and does not refer to Shodan....I don' t think I've ever interacted with him before)

[Shodan]

The Master Speaks -What is a troll? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1764/what-is-a-troll)

[AHunter3]

I disagree with Shodan on just about everything, or at least everything that matters. And i sometimes find his debating style to be, ahem, somewhat less than honest or reasonable. He probably feels the same way about me.

But, without reading the thread linked in the OP, i feel confident in saying that he's not a troll. He seems pretty well convinced of the merits of his political positions, and the arguments he uses to support them. He's never struck as someone who is here merely to get a reaction out of people, even though that is sometimes the result of his contributions.
I would agree with this, more or less.

I wouldn't characterize his style as intellectually dishonest. I do think he often intends to get a rise out of the people with whom he disagrees.

[Hockey Monkey]

Shodan isn't a troll. How about I just ignore you instead?

[Enola Gay]

The Master Speaks -What is a troll? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1764/what-is-a-troll)

Thank you. I actually tried to search, but kept getting "database errors". And having read Cecil's definition, I will agree with the masses that you are not a troll.

Regards,

Enola Gay

[Shodan]

Regards,

Enola GayYou have to put this in a sig, or they get pissy.

[Sarahfeena]

Some folks seem to use the term troll for anyone who holds an unpopular opinion, and is inclined to keep arguing without changing their basic position. I think that's missing the point of the term, though.

Shodan is always going to be a conservative and argue from that POV. That doesn't make him a troll, even on a board like this one.

Regards,
Sarahfeena

[Jackmannii]

The OP is gibberish. I have decided to ignore it.

[Clothahump]

I think far too many people refer to Shodan as a troll in the same manner that they call someone a liar simply because they disagree with what the other person says. I've never seen Shodan troll anyone on this board.

[Yumblie]

If someone says something stupid, they should be called on it. Maybe not for the benefit of anyone posting in the thread, but anyone idly reading it and hoping to learn from it. Something that's obviously ridiculous to you may not be so for others.

[Lobohan]

I think far too many people refer to Shodan as a troll in the same manner that they call someone a liar simply because they disagree with what the other person says. I've never seen Shodan troll anyone on this board.Shodan is an interesting case. He seems to genuinely be an ideologue who refuses to even examine things away from his point of view. His posting style is about as grating as Der Trihs' and I like him, so I guess I don't really have any place to call Shodan a troll. He does however post things purely to piss people off and that does fall within the gamut of what people consider trollish behavior.

Now that Clothahump guy, don't get me started on him.

[Jack Batty]

The Master Speaks -What is a troll? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1764/what-is-a-troll)

This post doesn't count because you didn't sign it correctly.

[saoirse]

You have to put this in a sig, or they get pissy.

Can I use that for my sig?


---------------------------------

Regards,

Shodan.
-Shodan

[Shodan]

Can I use that for my sig?


---------------------------------

Regards,

Shodan.
-ShodanNow my head hurts. Thanks a lot.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Shodan is always going to be a conservative and argue from that POV. That doesn't make him a troll, even on a board like this one.

Every few months we have a discussion about the composition of the SDMB and how it is so liberal. I think your post should be the final word on the matter.

[Peanut Gallery]

So yeah, it was a rather lengthy way of saying, "People, don't waste your breath!" I could almost have left him out of it because, like I said, he isn't alone in it, and it isn't just one quoted example. (And no I don't bookmark all the stupid things people say. That one just seemed like a good one to start the morning.)

What I originally linked to, I see like this ... Shodan claims something says A & B, somebody clearly points out that it actually says A, B, and C. He responds, "duh! A and B like I said! gahd!" To me this passes beyond simply bad debating or differing opinions ... and into the realm of not taking the conversation seriously.

I do ignore him. But what I am pitting (or maybe pitying) is people making post after post trying to reason with someone who just isn't looking for reason. Someone who pretends to be debating but is really just arguing for the sake of arguing. Being contentious just to get you fired up. That's trolling in my book. And it's annoying to watch people fall for it. Not to mention having to read between the posts for content vs. people entertaining them.


And I've always thought the internet slang "Troll" was lame. But it's there, so shit.

[AHunter3]

Shodan is always going to be a conservative and argue from that POV. That doesn't make him a troll, even on a board like this one.

Actually, having thoughtful conservatives who cite their sources and argue their point of view well is necessary to keep the board from becoming an echo chamber. Can't fight ignorance without some contrasting views and intellectual challenges.

I understand it's going to be frictional to post in an environment where so many of the other posters disagree with you and aren't often gentle in their expression thereof. Occasionally it is hard to parse the difference between an assertive, sometimes abrasive, often mocking conservative poster who does find opponents' tempers amusing, on the one hand, and someone whose rason d'etre is, or has become, the riling thereof and nothing but.

I had some good exchanges with december in the day but he had gotten to the point he wasn't adding value to the board by the time he was escorted to the door.

[Shodan]

I do ignore him.
I am not responding to this post.

[Sarahfeena]

Actually, having thoughtful conservatives who cite their sources and argue their point of view well is necessary to keep the board from becoming an echo chamber. Can't fight ignorance without some contrasting views and intellectual challenges.

I understand it's going to be frictional to post in an environment where so many of the other posters disagree with you and aren't often gentle in their expression thereof. Occasionally it is hard to parse the difference between an assertive, sometimes abrasive, often mocking conservative poster who does find opponents' tempers amusing, on the one hand, and someone whose rason d'etre is, or has become, the riling thereof and nothing but. But there are plenty of liberal posters who fit this part of your description: assertive, sometimes abrasive, often mocking posters who do find opponents' tempers amusing.

But they don't seem to be accused of the second part: that their rason d'etre becomes the riling thereof and nothing but.

The only difference there is whether the person happens to be in the majority. Deciding who is a troll based on that is pretty contrary to what this board is supposed to be about, IMO.

Every few months we have a discussion about the composition of the SDMB and how it is so liberal. I think your post should be the final word on the matter. Thanks? I think?

[AHunter3]

But there are plenty of liberal posters who fit this part of your description: assertive, sometimes abrasive, often mocking posters who do find opponents' tempers amusing.

But they don't seem to be accused of the second part: that their rason d'etre becomes the riling thereof and nothing but.


Do the math. When 70% of the people who respond to you are saying less abrasive things to you, chances are good that a decently high percentage of your own subsequent posts will not be abrasive, mocking, baiting, etc... that does not mean you aren't doing some of those, it's just that they end up being a smaller portion of your posting activity.

I am not disagreeing with your observation, I'm elaborating on it.

This board is admittedly a 'hostile work environment' for a conservative poster. It is much more likely that a conservative poster is going to end up posting a lot of abrasive, mocking, etc posts, in reply to such from liberal folk arguing with them. The abrasive etc post-percentage of those same liberal posters however stays low because 70% of the posters responding to them are not responding in a fashion that elicits that from them.

End result is that the conservative person in here ends up looking more abrasive, more argumentative, more hostile, perhaps more trollish.

[Cat Whisperer]

So yeah, it was a rather lengthy way of saying, "People, don't waste your breath!" I could almost have left him out of it because, like I said, he isn't alone in it, and it isn't just one quoted example. (And no I don't bookmark all the stupid things people say. That one just seemed like a good one to start the morning.)

What I originally linked to, I see like this ... Shodan claims something says A & B, somebody clearly points out that it actually says A, B, and C. He responds, "duh! A and B like I said! gahd!" To me this passes beyond simply bad debating or differing opinions ... and into the realm of not taking the conversation seriously.

I do ignore him. But what I am pitting (or maybe pitying) is people making post after post trying to reason with someone who just isn't looking for reason. Someone who pretends to be debating but is really just arguing for the sake of arguing. Being contentious just to get you fired up. That's trolling in my book. And it's annoying to watch people fall for it. Not to mention having to read between the posts for content vs. people entertaining them.


And I've always thought the internet slang "Troll" was lame. But it's there, so shit.
So what you're saying is that your OP could have been "DNFTT." :)

[Sarahfeena]

Do the math. When 70% of the people who respond to you are saying less abrasive things to you, chances are good that a decently high percentage of your own subsequent posts will not be abrasive, mocking, baiting, etc... that does not mean you aren't doing some of those, it's just that they end up being a smaller portion of your posting activity.

I am not disagreeing with your observation, I'm elaborating on it.

This board is admittedly a 'hostile work environment' for a conservative poster. It is much more likely that a conservative poster is going to end up posting a lot of abrasive, mocking, etc posts, in reply to such from liberal folk arguing with them. The abrasive etc post-percentage of those same liberal posters however stays low because 70% of the posters responding to them are not responding in a fashion that elicits that from them.

End result is that the conservative person in here ends up looking more abrasive, more argumentative, more hostile, perhaps more trollish. Ah, I see what you're saying. Can't disagree with you!

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I am fully aware that posting something will cause the Usual Suspects to go berserk, and still post it for the sheer entertainment value of watching the meltdowns.


This actually could pass for a working definition of trollish behavior. Certainly, I've been accused by numerous posters of doing nothing more than this (which I deny, btw, and which Shodan admits openly) in threads about religion which is then cited as evidence that I'm trolling. Shodan isn't even claiming that he actually believes the stuff that he posts to induce meltdowns--how come that isn't trolling? The word "sheer" still means something in English, doesn't it?

[Revenant Threshold]

This actually could pass for a working definition of trollish behavior. Certainly, I've been accused by numerous posters of doing nothing more than this (which I deny, btw, and which Shodan admits openly) in threads about religion which is then cited as evidence that I'm trolling. Shodan isn't even claiming that he actually believes the stuff that he posts to induce meltdowns--how come that isn't trolling? The word "sheer" still means something in English, doesn't it? I would say i've never considered Shodan to be trolling before, but this would to my eyes appear to be an admission to trolling. The column's view would appear to support that, at least to me yes. Might I ask of Shodan how he would define trolling?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Thanks? I think?

I surely was not insulting you. What it is is indicative of a change that's happened around here over the years such that you have to defend Shodan from troll accusations, unthinkable when I started here, and that you intimated, perhaps unintentionally, that conservatives don't fit in a "place like this".

I'd say that encapsulates the liberal nature of this board. Which is OK. But it certainly drives a stake into the argument that the SDMB is politically neutral.

[Shodan]

See my previous link. There is a distinction between posting knowing that it will cause idiots to go berserk, and posting in order to cause trouble in general.

Please notice that well-known troll pseudo whatever-the-fuck-it-is accuses me, without evidence, of posting things I don't believe. That's fine - he's an idiot, and one of the people I can count on to post nonsense in threads in which I participate.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So as long as I consider you to be an idiot, then it's okay to post shit that makes you go berserk, like pretending you don't know my user name or claiming I have no evidence for posting things you don't believe? I hate to belabor the point with so profound an ignoramus as you, because you won't get the point no matter how heavily I hammer it into your forehead, but you did claim a few posts up that you post things that cause certain Dopers to go berserk for the "sheer" entertainment value of watching them react. Now "sheer" as I read it means that, even if there is no earthly value to it other than your entertainment, not the value of representing your sincere beliefs, or any other value, you would and will still post these things. The use of the word "sheer" clearly implies that you will post provocative things whether or not you actually believe them to be true or even plausible. Tell me how that is to be distinguished from "trolling."

Now, argue your way out of that, Regards.

[furt]

I do ignore him.So when mom told you to stop touching your brother, you held a finger a quarter-inch away from his nose and said "I'm not touching yoooou!"

[Revenant Threshold]

See my previous link. There is a distinction between posting knowing that it will cause idiots to go berserk, and posting in order to cause trouble in general. I agree. It is highly possible that posting many thing is going to cause some people problems; simply having disliked opinions and expressing them is not trolling. I would define trolling as not just posting things that may cause a quite strong reaction, but deliberately posting things in order to cause that particular reaction. Hence, when I saw this;Correct, IMO. With the caveat that sometimes I am fully aware that posting something will cause the Usual Suspects to go berserk, and still post it for the sheer entertainment value of watching the meltdowns. ...I felt that posting for the sheer entertainment value of causing that reaction, knowing that it will occur, seems pretty in-line with trolling to me.

[Autolycus]

Pay no attention to the OP!

[Shodan]

So as long as I consider you to be an idiot, then it's okay to post shit that makes you go berserk
Sure, knock yourself out. I get the impression that you are trolling to provoke a reaction that will make Liberal pay you to go away again.

Which is fine. I am not going to give you a penny, and I suspect that, since you value your membership as little as that, you will get banned eventually anyway, so I can save my money. claiming I have no evidence for posting things you don't believe? Correct - that's something you made up.
you did claim a few posts up that you post things that cause certain Dopers to go berserk for the "sheer" entertainment value of watching them react. Now "sheer" as I read it means that, even if there is no earthly value to it other than your entertainment, not the value of representing your sincere beliefs, or any other value, you would and will still post these things.
See, there's something else you are making up. No one on earth - under a bridge, maybe, but not on earth - thinks that "sheer" means "insincere". That's not merely a stretch, it goes well beyond into "stupid". Territory with which you are intimately familiar, to be sure, but "stupid" nonetheless.

But, even though you are stupid and a troll, you have posted something (no doubt by the merest accident) that is correct. There is no earthly value in trying to have real discussion with the Usual Suspects (yourself included, since you are stupid and a troll). You and the rest of the shit-slingers are not capable of serious discussion on certain topics. Therefore, there is no earthly value in posting to engage you. Because, after all, you are stupid and a troll.

But laughing at you, making fun of your posts, and generally rubbing your nose in the fact that you are stupid and a troll - that has value. The only value that interacting with someone like you - stupid, and a troll - can have.

Back in the 1800s, visiting Bedlam Asylum and mocking the inmates was a popular entertainment. This is the twentyfirst century equivalent. I like to go under bridges, poke the inhabitants - like you, who is stupid and a troll - and mock them when they howl. Then I slap them down hard, laugh at them when they gibber, and move on to the next topic.

So, that's not trolling, as I said earlier, and you ignored, because you are stupid and a troll. It's feeding you and people like you, who are stupid and trolls.

[elucidator]

We of the Mother's March Against Cognitive Dissonance have yet to pick a 2009 Poster Child. Your last post inspires me to ask if you have a recent photo available?

[Tastes of Chocolate]

But what I am pitting (or maybe pitying) is people making post after post trying to reason with someone who just isn't looking for reason. Someone who pretends to be debating but is really just arguing for the sake of arguing. Being contentious just to get you fired up. That's trolling in my book. And it's annoying to watch people fall for it. Not to mention having to read between the posts for content vs. people entertaining them.

40 some posts in this thread seem to support your theory. Some people post just for the sake of arguing, and other people fall for it.

[Liberal]

Shodan is not a troll, but Kaylasdad was absolutely right.

[villa]

I don't think being hopelessly unprepared to defend certain posited arguments, in particular those relating to legal and constitutional analysis is trolling. I also don't think refusal to answer opposing points of view and repeatedly stating the same thing as some kind of pretend response is trolling. Nor do I think pretending points have not been made, when those points are damaging to his arguments, is trolling.

They are annoying to me, but hopefully are obvious to all who read. I do think creating frustration in those who oppose him gives Shodan a great degree of pleasure, but that in the end is the problem of those who argue against him. I got incredibly frustrated in a recent constitutional thread, but that doesn't make him a troll. Just someone refusing to accept that things might be not actually be the way he has decided they are.

[Contrapuntal]

Shodan is not a troll, but Kaylasdad was absolutely right.About something in this thread? I don't see it.

[descamisado]

About something in this thread? I don't see it.See the post to which Shodan was responding that is linked in the OP.

[Shodan]

Which is based on the premise (apparently) that if someone says A, B, and C, then they didn't say A or B.

[RTFirefly]

See, there's something else you are making up. No one on earth - under a bridge, maybe, but not on earth - thinks that "sheer" means "insincere". That's not merely a stretch, it goes well beyond into "stupid". Territory with which you are intimately familiar, to be sure, but "stupid" nonetheless.
Merriam-Webster definition: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sheer%5B3%5D) unqualified, utter <sheer folly> <sheer ignorance> b: being free from an adulterant : pure, unmixed c: viewed or acting in dissociation from all else <in terms of sheer numbers>

I'm not buying into the notion that Shodan is so ignorant that he was using 'sheer' as an adjective to mean gauzy or transparent (e.g. a sheer negligee), or to mean exceedingly steep (a sheer cliff).

He was, @11, admitting to being a troll, and in what I've just quoted, he was practicing the art of trolling.

It's always fun to study the species in its native habitat. Shall we tag this one with a little radio transmitter?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No one on earth - under a bridge, maybe, but not on earth - thinks that "sheer" means "insincere". That's not merely a stretch, it goes well beyond into "stupid"

You may repeat your supposed impression of my intellectual abilities and of my status as a well-known troll as often as you like--I believe you repeated it half-a-dozen times or more in your last post, but those who agree with you and those who disagree are all intelligent enough to get your point with only two or three repetitions per post. Any more than that tends to give the impression that you are repeating yourself for the sheer pleasure of repeating yourself.

As to the meaning of the word "sheer"--it means "complete and without restriction or qualification " or "complete - having every necessary or normal part or component or step" or "not mixed with extraneous elements; unmingled, unmixed, plain, pure"-- get the idea? When you claim, as you self-destructively did here, that you often post provocative things for the "sheer" entertainment value of watching the results, that means that nothing other than that entertainment value need be present for you to justify having posted the provocative things. As often as you persist in calling me a troll and calling me stupid, that won't change the definition of "sheer" to mean "wholly sufficient in itself" to ID you as a troll, by your own testimony. Whether I'm a stupid troll or a noble and wise poster is utterly irrelevant here, because the subject, which you seek to evade, is your having admitted to being a troll in the post I reference above. This is the subject I bring to your attention, and which I'd like you to address, whenever you're done dishing out extraneous abuse, which is as boring to me as it is fascinating to you.

Now, it's your turn to discharge some of that pus you keep stored in your cranium and rant and carry on, ignoring my simple and direct point in the previous paragraph. I'll help you get started: mention that you don't like me, mention that you believe I'm very stupid, that I'm a troll, and spew general abuse and shit around in such quantities as to make the very dim-witted of your fans believe you wrote anything responsive to my crystal-clear point about the meaning of the word "sheer" in your post above.

[Shodan]

No, if you are just going to repeat shit, it isn't as much fun. Three paragraphs of horseshit, where you simply repeat the lie that "sheer" means "insincere" is unimaginative.

See, that another of the things that drives maroons like you crazy - I don't fall for your bullshit. You can troll away as hard as you want. As long as you are amusing me, I will poke you again and again, for the sheer fun of laughing at you.

Now, if you weren't stupid, you would realize that 'sheer" in that context means just what it does in every other. Obviously, it does not mean that I am not laughing at you, or that I don't think you are a complete dolt. Obviously, I do.

But that's only if you weren't stupid. As it is...

[Jack Batty]

Troll fight! Troll fight!

Hit him with your pink hair!

[Jackmannii]

Which is based on the premise (apparently) that if someone says A, B, and C, then they didn't say A or B.Now, I'm not saying 1...or even 2 and 3. But I am saying 4, 5 and 6. (confused, angry uproar)

Dog eat dog, not cock and bull
Isms are the game
Ism this and ism that
Ism it a shame?

- Bonzo Dog Band

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

We really do overuse the word "troll" around here.

The vast overwhelming majority of the time, Shodan is not being a troll. In fact, as a mod I'm pleased that we have very few real trolls (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) on this board (I have no interest in the uncontrolled anarchy that is a 4chan-type board).

Posting unpopular opinions is not trollish, unless they aren't your real opinions, or you're doing it specifically to get a rise out of people. When I state that fortunetellers, astrologers, and dowsers are fakes, I know with certainty that Peter Morris is going to show up and start discoursing about James Randi. But that's not why I make such posts. I make them to answer questions, debate subjects, fight ignorance, and (of course) express my own personal opinions.

I think that Shodan believes what he posts. I also think that he is aware that many of his opinions are controversial and that they'll engender debate, discussion and even ridicule on the SDMB. You can have debates without being a troll. You can disagree with the majority without being a troll. You can even get angry and argumentative without being a troll.

[Cervaise]

Hit him with your pink hair!That's hot.

[descamisado]

I think that Shodan believes what he posts. I also think that he is aware that many of his opinions are controversial and that they'll engender debate, discussion and even ridicule on the SDMB. You can have debates without being a troll. You can disagree with the majority without being a troll. You can even get angry and argumentative without being a troll.I'm sincerely curious what you as a mod think of think of this statement.Correct, IMO. With the caveat that sometimes I am fully aware that posting something will cause the Usual Suspects to go berserk, and still post it for the sheer entertainment value of watching the meltdowns.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

I'm sincerely curious what you as a mod think of think of this statement.It threw me when I first read it. I've always considered the "just to watch the meltdown" factor an integral part of what makes a troll, and the Shodan posts that I *do* consider trolling were probably posted for that reason. Another factor that distinguishes trolls is that they tend to incite riots and watch, rather than being active participants all the way through. A really good troll can do a "hit and run" that goes on for days after the troll leaves.

The first time I read what you quoted, I took it to mean that Shodan composed a post and then stopped to think about whether it would piss people off. He figured it would and decided to post it anyway. It was still his opinion, and pissing people off wasn't the reason he wrote it, so I didn't think of it as trolling.

Rereading it now, I wonder if I misread it. Mayhaps you'd better jump in, Shodan, and explain that post.

[askeptic]

Mayhaps you'd better jump in, Shodan, and explain that post.

Time to start backpeddlin like a motherfuck, shoddyboy.

This should be interesting...

[Revenant Threshold]

Rereading it now, I wonder if I misread it. Mayhaps you'd better jump in, Shodan, and explain that post. I'm uncertain where the "sheer doesn't mean insincere" thing came from - but to my interpretation sheer in that context means only, singularily (to go from the definitions RTF posted, definition b). In that sense, then, it appeared that Shodan was not saying he realises his posts (made for whatever reason) will stir up the Usual Suspects but chooses to anyway, nor that he does so for a mix of those other reasons plus the ability to stir up trouble, but for the sole and singular purpose of enjoying the ensuing trouble. That he posted for the sheer purpose of enjoying that reaction - that his motivation was trolling and that alone.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No, if you are just going to repeat shit, it isn't as much fun. Three paragraphs of horseshit, where you simply repeat the lie that "sheer" means "insincere" is unimaginative.

See, that another of the things that drives maroons like you crazy - I don't fall for your bullshit. You can troll away as hard as you want. As long as you are amusing me, I will poke you again and again, for the sheer fun of laughing at you.

Now, if you weren't stupid, you would realize that 'sheer" in that context means just what it does in every other. Obviously, it does not mean that I am not laughing at you, or that I don't think you are a complete dolt. Obviously, I do.

But that's only if you weren't stupid. As it is...


More evasive crap from the evasive crapmeister. In this bit, you claim that I "simply repeat the lie that 'sheer' means 'insincere'," probably on Shodan's principle that any misstatement becomes true if repeated often enough. Of course, I never claimed that "sheer" means "insincere," or made any claim resembling that one. The only sentence of mine in this thread containing both words "sheer" and "sincere" is this one:

Now "sheer" as I read it means that, even if there is no earthly value to it other than your entertainment, not the value of representing your sincere beliefs, or any other value, you would and will still post these things

It in no way begins to define "sheer" as meaning "insincere." I don't even need the adjective "sincere," which simply intensifies the noun "beliefs," but you carry on exactly as if you're saying something substantial with this bit of piffle, and you bellow and you roar precisely as if you were making some kind of point here. but your intent is plainly to make me run around and stomp out all sorts of diversionary fires that you've started and then to give up in frustration and tears. Do you think I'm having a hard time refuting your idiotic posts? This is simple child's stuff for me, easy to keep pointing out what simpleminded diversionary tactics you're using, and easy to keep proving to casual readers how this amounts to trolling on your part. If you were smart, you'd simply stop digging your own grave, but if you were smart, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Starving Artist]

This from M-W in the context he obviously meant it:

Main Entry: 3sheer
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English schere freed from guilt, probably alteration of skere, from Old Norse skærr pure; akin to Old English scīnan to shine
Date: circa 1568
1obsolete : bright , shining
2: of very thin or transparent texture : diaphanous
3 a: unqualified , utter <sheer folly> <sheer ignorance> b: being free from an adulterant : pure , unmixed c: viewed or acting in dissociation from all else <in terms of sheer numbers>

Having said that, I'm not having much of a problem with this myself. Shodan reads something he wants to respond to and in the course of composing it realizes that it's gonna really piss off one or more of the 'usual suspects', people who have more often than not been flinging insults his way to begin with. So then, posting the very same thing he was gonna post anyway, he punches the Submit button with enthusiasm and a bit of a 'Hell, yeah, this'll show their ass!', and he takes sheer (unqualified, utter) pleasure in doing so.

In other words, the pleasure he may take is the icing on the cake but not the cake itself.

And let's be honest, every snarky and/or insulting remark made on this board, regardless of the forum, is done with the deliberate intent to piss someone off. If the criterion for trollery was posting with piss-off intent, this board would lose many of its most active posters.

[cmyk]

Funny, I always saw him as an irreverent little Garden Gnome. (http://goodcomics.com/sdmb/shodan.jpg)



ETA: Sorry, Shodan... I couldn't resist.

[askeptic]

imagine that, SA defending Shoddy. Who would've thunk it?

[Starving Artist]

If the defense is valid, what difference does it make who posts it?

[descamisado]

If the defense is valid, what difference does it make who posts it?So you'll be checking M-W to get the definition of the word valid now, I take it?

[mhendo]

I'd say that encapsulates the liberal nature of this board. Which is OK. But it certainly drives a stake into the argument that the SDMB is politically neutral.I'm trying to remember the last time i actually saw that argument.

To my knowledge, every single liberal and leftist here acknowledges that we are the majority on this board. Hell, i've heard leftists and liberals lamenting how few conservatives we have to debate with.

Can you find me even a single instance in, say, the last year, when a regular, in-good-standing member of this board (i.e., not a 3-post hit-and-run member) has claimed that it is politically neutral?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I'm not having much of a problem with this myself. Shodan ....takes sheer (unqualified, utter) pleasure in doing so.

In other words, the pleasure he may take is the icing on the cake but not the cake itself. And let's be honest, every snarky and/or insulting remark made on this board, regardless of the forum, is done with the deliberate intent to piss someone off.


Except, my dear fuckwit, the word "sheer" did not qualify the pleasure he took in the acting of pissing people off, but rather it qualified the "entertainment value of watching the meltdowns" for him. In other words, the entire, whole, complete point of pissing people off was to gain pleasure from their agitation. A better definition of trolling cannot be had, for love or money.

And, please, let's do be honest. You are, I take it, then confessing to every snarky remark of yours being made iwth the deliberate intent to piss people off? That's very interesting because when I have occasion to snark, it's often to amuse people, to point out gently some unwitting remark they may have made about themselves, sometimes to preen or play the fool. It's very good to hear your confessional, however, and I hope you won't mind if I remind you and others of your declared intent from time to time.

[Starving Artist]

That's very interesting because when I have occasion to snark, it's often to amuse people, to point out gently some unwitting remark they may have made about themselves, sometimes to preen or play the fool.Oh, goody! Then perhaps you'll be kind enough to describe which harmless motivation was the intent behind your use of "my dear fuckwit".

I'm going with playing the fool myself.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No, that was intended to dispense faux-civil abuse.

That's still allowed in the Pit, right? Right. So your point is...? That I wasn't pretending to like you in the Pit? Guilty as charged.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I might pretend to like you, however, even in the Pit from time to time, if you weren't an infected dirtbag spewing self-contradictory and ignorant lies every time you open your pustule. But unfortunately that's what you are, and that's why I can't pretend very well.

If you were curious.

[Sarahfeena]

I surely was not insulting you. What it is is indicative of a change that's happened around here over the years such that you have to defend Shodan from troll accusations, unthinkable when I started here, and that you intimated, perhaps unintentionally, that conservatives don't fit in a "place like this". I thought that's what you meant, I just wasn't 100% sure. And my intimation was indeed intentional...we DON'T really fit in. It takes someone fairly tenacious and/or not afraid to be in the minority.

So as long as I consider you to be an idiot, then it's okay to post shit that makes you go berserk, like pretending you don't know my user name or claiming I have no evidence for posting things you don't believe? I hate to belabor the point with so profound an ignoramus as you, because you won't get the point no matter how heavily I hammer it into your forehead, but you did claim a few posts up that you post things that cause certain Dopers to go berserk for the "sheer" entertainment value of watching them react. Now "sheer" as I read it means that, even if there is no earthly value to it other than your entertainment, not the value of representing your sincere beliefs, or any other value, you would and will still post these things. Oh, come on, PRR, that's hogwash. There is nothing about "sheer entertainment value" that says he does not believe the things he posts. He's just saying that he might not bother posting if he didn't know that people would be outraged that he has the temerity to hold unpopular opinions. Let's face it, there probably IS no other value to it other than his entertainment. He IS representing his sincere beliefs, and he's still accused of not being sincere, so that can't be the value. He probably isn't going to convince anyone around here to change their minds, so that can't be the value. So, tell me, what IS the value of posting here, to him? I guess he could cry over the fact that everyone disagrees with him, and run away, but that wouldn't be much fun for anyone, now, would it?

The use of the word "sheer" clearly implies that you will post provocative things whether or not you actually believe them to be true or even plausible. Tell me how that is to be distinguished from "trolling." I don't think it implies that, at all.

[Starving Artist]

I might pretend to like you, however, even in the Pit from time to time, if you weren't an infected dirtbag spewing self-contradictory and ignorant lies every time you open your pustule. But unfortunately that's what you are, and that's why I can't pretend very well.

It's nice to get confirmation from time to time that one is doing one's job well.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I don't think it implies that, at all.

You may join the ranks of those who don't understand what "sheer" means, then. It means "pure." It means "unalloyed." It means, my dear, that it is a complete justification for his posting provocative stuff, solely to agitate his readers. "Sheer" entertainment value means that if he does nothing other than entertain himself, he feels wonderful about pissing people off, especially because he considers them to be idiots. As you admit, "Let's face it, there probably IS no other value to it other than his entertainment." That's trolling, pure and simple. It's not that I think it's impossible that Shodan actually believes some of the crap he defecates here once in a while--it's just that, by own admission (and yours) it's not necessary for him to believe the shit he spews. Just being entertained by the reactions he stirs up is a wholly satisfying reason for him to extrude a few more entertaining turds. You may spin that any way you choose, but my needle is stuck on "TROLL."

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It's nice to get confirmation from time to time that one is doing one's job well.

So let me understand you better: you think it's your job here to try to make me frustrated and angry? If so, you'll have to do a lot better than that. If not, please explain your "job" as expressed in your post.

[Sarahfeena]

You may join the ranks of those who don't understand what "sheer" means, then. It means "pure." It means "unalloyed." It means, my dear, that it is a complete justification for his posting provocative stuff, solely to agitate his readers. "Sheer" entertainment value means that if he does nothing other than entertain himself, he feels wonderful about pissing people off, especially because he considers them to be idiots. As you admit, "Let's face it, there probably IS no other value to it other than his entertainment." That's trolling, pure and simple. It's not that I think it's impossible that Shodan actually believes some of the crap he defecates here once in a while--it's just that, by own admission (and yours) it's not necessary for him to believe the shit he spews. Just being entertained by the reactions he stirs up is a wholly satisfying reason for him to extrude a few more entertaining turds. You may spin that any way you choose, but my needle is stuck on "TROLL."No, my dear, I never admitted any such thing. He's only saying that long past the time when he realizes the conversation is going nowhere, he persists, because it's funny to see people blow a gasket. There are plenty of folks around here who will go round and round in circles, arguing the same points for a zillion pages. Why are they doing it? Because for one reason or another, it amuses them to do so. He's just willing to admit that it's basically pointless. I mean, we are ALL here for sheer entertainment. What the hell else are we all doing?

[Starving Artist]

You may join the ranks of those who don't understand what "sheer" means, then. It means "pure." It means "unalloyed." Correct.

It means, my dear, that it is a complete justification for his posting provocative stuff, solely to agitate his readers.See, now this is where you go offbase, mon dipshit. Taking pure and unalloyed pleasure in making the post does not exclude the concomitant appropriateness of the message contained in the post itself. In other words, sheer refers to the pleasure he found in posting a message that he would have posted anyway. Pleasure and content are not the same thing, nor does the one exclude the other.

[Starving Artist]

So let me understand you better: you think it's your job here to try to make me frustrated and angry? If so, you'll have to do a lot better than that. If not, please explain your "job" as expressed in your post.No, my job here is to call 'em as I see 'em. The fact that you may become frustrated and/or angry as a result (a conclusion one would be hard pressed not to arrive at given your rather animated description of me above) is merely a consequence/side benefit.

Pretty much the same case as with Shodan, come to think of it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

we are ALL here for sheer entertainment. What the hell else are we all doing?

I'm surprised at you.

I'm here to learn stuff, from my betters. Sometimes I get to teach stuff to my peers. Once in a while I get to console someone who needs consolation, and sometimes I get to snap the head off of someone whose head is way too big for his neck. I'm here to find out if anybody else has the same weird ideas I sometimes get, to swap chili recipes, to find out what I can do with a lightbulb that has broken off in the socket. I try to be a person, as best as I can here, even if people choose to take offense at some of the principles I live by, and I try not to reduce my antagonists (when I have some, which is often) to dehumanized objects of ridicule. I don't always succeed, especially not with the likes of Shodan and Starving Artist, who seem to thrive on positions that glorify themselves at the expense of those who disagree with them, but I find it easy with nice people like you, with whom I agree on very little but who treats people with civility and decency almost all of the time.

If all I wanted was sheer entertainment, I'd watch porn and film noirs.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No, my job here is to call 'em as I see 'em. The fact that you may become frustrated and/or angry as a result (a conclusion one would be hard pressed not to arrive at given your rather animated description of me above) is merely a consequence/side benefit.

Pretty much the same case as with Shodan, come to think of it.


I think you're lying, but I think you've been doing that since you were a fetus, so that's nothing new. How did my post confirm that you were doing your job of calling 'em as you see 'em, then? See, me, I think you realized that you had almost admitted, in your previous post, that you were taking great satisfaction in getting people agitated, and that you in fact considered that to be your "job" on the SD, but then realized that you, too, would then be admitting to trolling, more or less permanently, so you backed off with this non sequitur of Bill Klem's. Nice try--try a little harder next time. Someone may be buying this line of crap, you never know.

[Sarahfeena]

I'm surprised at you.

I'm here to learn stuff, from my betters. Sometimes I get to teach stuff to my peers. Once in a while I get to console someone who needs consolation, and sometimes I get to snap the head off of someone whose head is way too big for his neck. I'm here to find out if anybody else has the same weird ideas I sometimes get, to swap chili recipes, to find out what I can do with a lightbulb that has broken off in the socket. I try to be a person, as best as I can here, even if people choose to take offense at some of the principles I live by, and I try not to reduce my antagonists (when I have some, which is often) to dehumanized objects of ridicule. I don't always succeed, especially not with the likes of Shodan and Starving Artist, who seem to thrive on positions that glorify themselves at the expense of those who disagree with them, but I find it easy with nice people like you, with whom I agree on very little but who treats people with civility and decency almost all of the time.

If all I wanted was sheer entertainment, I'd watch porn and film noirs. Well, gee, PRR, thanks for the compliment! You are throwing me off my Pit game, here.

See, I get that the Dope can be all of those things you say, but to me all of that IS "sheer entertainment." If I get a certain kick out of reading a spectacular train wreck, that's part of it, too. If I tweak someone who disagrees with me a little bit, and they get annoyed, that's part of it, too. Now, I grant you, my style and personality is far different from Shodan's. I'm not defending his posting style, necessarily, and he doesn't need me to. But to be completely fair to him, I just don't believe that what he is saying is that he'll say any ol' thing just to piss people off...that's all. I think people are reading stuff into what he said that simply isn't there.

[Starving Artist]

I think you're lying, but I think you've been doing that since you were a fetus, so that's nothing new. One wonders, since you're not trolling, just which disingenuous motivation you would attribute to this little bit of snark. My guess is that you're just playing the fool again, but only in the sense that fish play at being wet.


See, me, I think you realized that you had almost admitted, in your previous post, that you were taking great satisfaction in getting people agitated, and that you in fact considered that to be your "job" on the SD, but then realized that you, too, would then be admitting to trolling, more or less permanently, so you backed off with this non sequitur of Bill Klem's.Not quite. I've said time and time again around here that I give back what I get. My behavior toward you and certain other posters around here is almost a mirror reflection of what I get from you and them. Treat me with respect, politeness and consideration, and I'll do the same with you even if we disagree on the subject at hand. It is almost invariably the case that when I'm critical or ugly with someone in a personal way around here that they have behaved that way toward me first.

Take you, for example. The first I noticed you (apart from being someone that another poster found it worthwhile to cough up $500 to get rid of) was when you were jumping my shit and slinging insults because you didn't like what I'd said to someone else or about something else.

You say you treat nice people like Sarahfeena nicely but you are a liar. You treat people like Sarahfeena nicely so long as they don't say something that really cheeses you off.

Of course, if you can find an example of where I was ugly to you unprovoked, I'll be happy to retract and apologize, but I think we both know who has been the asshole first in that regard.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You say you treat nice people like Sarahfeena nicely but you are a liar. You treat people like Sarahfeena nicely so long as they don't say something that really cheeses you off.


Sarahfeena pisses me off about once a week, the last time when she opened a thread about something to do with her kid's school, I think, that had me howling at the moon, but I forgive her easily, even when I think she's dead wrong because she has a good heart and makes a whole bunch of mistakes. Very easy to forgive.

You, on the other hand, piss me off just by the obnoxious and disrespectful way you address other posters, the way you tangle them up in nonsense and refuse (like your friend Shodan, in this way) to engage honestly in the subject under discussion. You never seem to learn anything, to change your mind, to back off your position, to concede a fact, to admit a mistake. You were born knowing everything there is to know about this universe, including who started it and why and what he had for breakfast, and you're intent on making sure that everyone here appreciates your authoritative views on everything under the sun. Well, consider this an appreciation thread, then--I sure appreciate you for what you are.

[Sarahfeena]

Sarahfeena pisses me off about once a week, the last time when she opened a thread about something to do with her kid's school, I think, that had me howling at the moon, but I forgive her easily, even when I think she's dead wrong because she has a good heart and makes a whole bunch of mistakes. Very easy to forgive. I'm know you are trying to be nice, here, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about how this sounds. "Oh, Sarahfeena, bless her heart...she's one dumb chick, but she's sweet, so I overlook it." :rolleyes:

[Bryan Ekers]

He's not a troll. He's a robot.

Can't he be both, like the late Earl-o-matic?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Never said that you were dumb (OR a chick, for that matter.) Just that we disagree on many, many things. Maybe I'm dumb. I'm sure you think I make a mistake every day that I get out of bed.

Didn't say I overlook the things you say that I think are dead wrong, either. I said I forgive them. You're one of those people, I forget what you call 'em, who are big on forgiveness as a virtue, right?

[Sarahfeena]

Oh, and I the most I ever post anything even mildly controversial is probably no more than once a week. So, PRR, that means you get pissed off pretty much every time I have an opinion that's different than yours...you don't even need me to say anything in a particularly inflammatory manner (which you admit I'm not prone to doing). It's awfully nice of you to forgive me having my own opinions about things.

[Lightnin']

If all I wanted was sheer entertainment, I'd watch porn and film noirs.

As an aside, I think porn noir would be pretty damn cool.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It's awfully nice of you to forgive me having my own opinions about things.

That's about right. You say something I disagree with, I usually say nothing at all, think "Oh, that Sarah with her ideas--oh, well, everyone's entitled to their opinions," and go about my day. Is there a part of that you have a problem with?

[Sarahfeena]

That's about right. You say something I disagree with, I usually say nothing at all, think "Oh, that Sarah with her ideas--oh, well, everyone's entitled to their opinions," and go about my day. Is there a part of that you have a problem with? So you weren't literally howling at the moon? OK, I feel better now. :)

I just think your posts here sound a tad condescending. As I said, I don't think you intend it, it's just not coming across too well.

[Starving Artist]

You never seem to learn anything, to change your mind, to back off your position, to concede a fact, to admit a mistake.It's both interesting and amusing that it's always the conservatives around here who are expected to 'learn things', to back off their position and/or change their point of view, and who get castigated for their stubborn refusal to see the light.

What arrogance. How many liberals around here have changed their position on substantive issues and/or their political ideology because something a conservative posted?

Pretty close to zero, I'd guess, and there are a hell of a lot more libs around here than conservatives.

The fact of the matter is, we all state our opinions and argue our positions based on what we think and believe. It seems to be a singular quality of the board's liberals, however, to feel that it's incumbent upon the board's conservatives to 'learn something' from their posts and change their views accordingly, with failure to do so invariably met with accusations of stubborness, intactibility, stupidity, ditto-headedness, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

So, you tell me whose behavior is the most egregious?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So you weren't literally howling at the moon? OK, I feel better now. :)

.

No, I WAS literally howling at the moon, I just wasn't posting in your "intolerant liberals" thread "I just went outside to howl at the moon...", is all.

I just think your posts here sound a tad condescending. As I said, I don't think you intend it, it's just not coming across too well.

I think you mean, "My dear little man, please remember to whom you are addressing your comments.":p

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It's both interesting and amusing that it's always the conservatives around here who are expected to 'learn things', to back off their position and/or change their point of view, and who get castigated for their stubborn refusal to see the light.

What arrogance. How many liberals around here have changed their position on substantive issues and/or their political ideology because something a conservative posted?

Pretty close to zero, I'd guess, and there are a hell of a lot more libs around here than conservatives.

The fact of the matter is, we all state our opinions and argue our positions based on what we think and believe. It seems to be a singular quality of the board's liberals, however, to feel that it's incumbent upon the board's conservatives to 'learn something' from their posts and change their views accordingly, with failure to do so invariably met with accusations of stubborness, intactibility, stupidity, ditto-headedness, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

So, you tell me whose behavior is the most egregious?

I think you're wrong here, too. Why don't you open up a thread and ask liberals if they've ever learned anything, conceded a fact, changed their position, accepted a conservative idea, etc.? I'll bet you get some concessions along that line. I know I'll participate. But for now, name a single truth you came around to that was espoused by a liberal that you at first strongly opposed. I'll be clocking you for how long you take to come with one.

[elucidator]

You tighty rightys slay me! Why do you hang out here? I'll tell you why, because the people are smart. You like smart, dumb bores you. But you got a problem, don't you, being that the majority of these smart people think you are, well, wrong. Now, of course, you know you're not, so you have to resolve the contradiction. Why, it must be that liberals don't respect your opinions! Its their fault for not agreeing with you. It can't be because a majority of smarter people tend to be more open to change. And, frankly, what is conservatism but resistance to change?

Now, most likely you would be happier at a boards where the people are as generally smart as they are here, but populated with the reverse population bias: smart, but with the mirror opposite political bent.

But there isn't one, is there? All these tubes, all these blog holes, and no such place as a conservative version of the SDMB. Sure, you can slum at the Freep, or at The Corner, but you're not there ten minutes without somebody embarrassing the shit out of you.

So here you are. You think the dealer is a mechanic, the cards are marked, and its the only game in town. So you ante up.

[Starving Artist]

But for now, name a single truth you came around to that was espoused by a liberal that you at first strongly opposed.A single truth? Okay, I was once of the opinion that that politicians who were members of the Democratic party were actually members of the Democrat party and were merely referring to themselves as Democratic in an effort to subliminally influence people to think of them in a more positive light - that they were somehow more 'democratic' than their Republican opponents.

Liberal posters here posted cites showing that the Democratic party has been referred to as such since its inception. I changed my view accordingly and have referred to both the party and its members as Democratic ever since...with the exception of times when Democrat would be more appropriate, such as, "Kennedy's the only Democrat I've been pleased with as POTUS", etc.

There are other ways in which I've changed my opinion because of things I learned here. For example, I'm less critical of Obama and more inclined to take a wait and see attitude toward his future presidency than I would have been had I not been reading this board.

And on the rare occasion that a poster approaches me respectfully and tactfully - posters such as Revenant Threshold, FinnAgain and Zoe (or, hell, even lissener, on occasion ;))- I can find myself reconsidering a my behavior and/or stance on the issue at hand.

Another thing I've learned is that sometimes liberals really do have a rationale for the things they think. :eek: ;) I rarely agree with that rationale but it's become clear to me that not everything that falls under the umbrella of liberalism is attributable to mindless knee-jerk reflex and/or a simpleminded desire to do whatever feels good.

[Starving Artist]

You like smart, dumb bores you.That comma should have been a semi-colon. ;)

As for the rest of your post, my esteemed denizen of refrigeratorland...poppycock! Just like with religion, abortion, socialism, etc., plenty of smart people can be found on both sides of the issue.

The reason for this is that intelligence really plays only a minor periferal role in people's policial orientation. People believe what they do politically because of complex deep-seated reasons, the genesis for which they would likely be hard pressed to elucidate (sorry, but the word really is and always has been a ready part of my vocabulary) and which is based more on emotion than on intellect.

Further, I don't believe conservatives are resistant to change so much as they are resistance to change for its own sake, or change made with no regard to consequence, which seems to be the type of change most favored by the left. You know, the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater type of change. The type of change in which any disagreement or reticence is met with insults and name-calling. That type of change is the sort we're resistant to.

And now, I got chit to do.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

A single truth? Okay, I was once of the opinion that that politicians who were members of the Democratic party were actually members of the Democrat party and were merely referring to themselves as Democratic in an effort to subliminally influence people to think of them in a more positive light - that they were somehow more 'democratic' than their Republican opponents.

Liberal posters here posted cites showing that the Democratic party has been referred to as such since its inception. I changed my view accordingly and have referred to both the party and its members as Democratic ever since...with the exception of times when Democrat would be more appropriate, such as, "Kennedy's the only Democrat I've been pleased with as POTUS", etc.

There are other ways in which I've changed my opinion because of things I learned here. For example, I'm less critical of Obama and more inclined to take a wait and see attitude toward his future presidency than I would have been had I not been reading this board.

And on the rare occasion that a poster approaches me respectfully and tactfully - posters such as Revenant Threshold, FinnAgain and Zoe (or, hell, even lissener, on occasion ;))- I can find myself reconsidering a my behavior and/or stance on the issue at hand.

Another thing I've learned is that sometimes liberals really do have a rationale for the things they think. :eek: ;) I rarely agree with that rationale but it's become clear to me that not everything that falls under the umbrella of liberalism is attributable to mindless knee-jerk reflex and/or a simpleminded desire to do whatever feels good.

So it took you fifty-three minutes to cough up that hairball, which you could have looked up in any decent reference work for grade-schoolers instead of having to be persuaded against your will by earnest Democrats presenting you heaps of evidence that the Democratic Party has been called the "Democratic Party" since the mid-nineteenth century? That's your idea of changing your mind about something? You might want to consider why, exactly, so few people treat you with anything approaching respect, and how little you contribute to knowledge or understanding around here. Me, I've been thanked by various posters (not in this thread) over the past few days for my small contributions to their threads, and that overall good will, despite my frequent abrasiveness, assures me I'm not that bad. You? Not so much. You basically stink on ice.

Look at the pathetic list of things you've learned. You had to be taught that sometimes a rare liberal thinker will actually have an independent thought and might choose to forgo the pleasures of a mindless knee-jerk reflex? That your adversaries, in short, are human beings? You get treated like a monster around here because years of posting here has caused you to make only these minute exceptions to your rule of thumb that everyone who disagrees with you is only your caricature of them.

Less critical of Obama, huh? Maybe you can cite me a post of yours where you express a specific concession to that effect. It doesn't even have to be gracious. Needless to say (but I'm saying it to you anyway, because you seem so proud of the occasions you've acknowledged that reality exists, even if you choose not to believe in it) conceding factual stuff, like, "His adminstration hasn't begun yet" or "He was elected by a majority of the electoral votes," doesn't count. I'd really like to see what you consider to be your most generous, least critical post about Obama.

[Starving Artist]

So it took you fifty-three minutes to cough up that hairballNope, coughed it up instantly once I managed to pull myself away from the offboard activities I was engaged in. You don't seriously think I gave two shits about your 'clocking' me, do you?

...which you could have looked up in any decent reference work for grade-schoolers instead of having to be persuaded against your will by earnest Democrats presenting you heaps of evidence that the Democratic Party has been called the "Democratic Party" since the mid-nineteenth century? Yup, I could have looked it up, but since I had oodles of posters willing to furnish the information, it seemed the sensible thing to do would be to look at their cites. That's what you wanted to know if I ever did, right? That's your idea of changing your mind about something? You asked for just one example, I gave you one example (plus a couple of others just 'cause I'm a nice guy). You might want to consider why, exactly, so few people treat you with anything approaching respect...I already know why...I'm a conservative. There is no conservative around here who gets treated with anything approaching respect. Not Bricker, not Sam Stone, not Shodan and not me. and how little you contribute to knowledge or understanding around here. As opposed to the widely accepted knowledge and understanding generated around here by the conservative posters I just mentioned? Me, I've been thanked by various posters (not in this thread) over the past few days for my small contributions to their threads, and that overall good will, despite my frequent abrasiveness, assures me I'm not that bad. Well, what can I say? There's no accounting for taste.
Look at the pathetic list of things you've learned. Not a comprehensive list, by any means. I learn things here every day. I just dashed off a few off the top of my head while tending to more important things than this so-called dialog with you. Some of us have off-board lives, you know, and we sometimes have to post on the fly. You had to be taught that sometimes a rare liberal thinker will actually have an independent thought and might choose to forgo the pleasures of a mindless knee-jerk reflex? That your adversaries, in short, are human beings? Drama queen, much?

I'm perfectly aware that they are human beings. And though to me they are wrongheaded, most of them are far too intelligent to post drivel like you just did. You need to get over yourself. That was just silly. You get treated like a monster around here because years of posting here has caused you to make only these minute exceptions...And how have these so-called monster-treaters known of the three exceptions all these years? I only just posted them tonight.

But apart from that, nobody's seen fit so far to cough up half a grand to get rid of my ass, have they?

If you don't like my posting style, take a look at your own. People like you are the reason I post as I do.

I'd really like to see what you consider to be your most generous, least critical post about Obama.At this point I couldn't give less of a shit what you'd like to see. You asked for information, and even though I was busy with other things at the time, I gave it in a civil and expositionary manner. In response you chose to distort my words and thinking, and you've revealed yourself in the process to be no more intelligent than you are intellectually honest, so I'm not gonna waste my time.

But I mean that in the nicest way.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Thus confirming my suspicions. You've never written a word remotely accepting of Obama, have you? But you have, as far as I (and your reading public here) now know, now lied about having professed anything positive towards Obama. You, of course, need produce nothing, not even something as simple as a link to a post, to prove you have. It's just that the absence of your troubling to produce such a thread serves as convincing evidence that no such thread exists, depsite your protestations of fair-mindedness. You've got, IOW, nothing, but you have added to your long record of lying in your posting history.

And I was about to mention, as a matter of fact, the respect I have for Bricker, who just yesterday set me straight about a legal matter I was in need of information on. I rarely agree with him, sometimes find him smug and tendentious, but usually find him honest and fair-minded, and rarely feel in the right heaping abuse on him the way I do with you, or Shodan. Your posts particularly inspire me to work hard at ensuring that you and those you approve of remain far from having power in this society, are constantly reviled and mocked and ridiculed, and you personally have caused me to contribute some of Liberal's hard-earned money to the Obama campaign. I can't be sure, but I think all of his money, finally, was contributed to that campaign, and he himself felt so strongly about paying me to refrain from posting that he changed his mind and told me I could post AND keep the money, after which I informed him that I'd be donating most of it to Obama, anyway. So he and I are cool, far as I know. But bullies and ignoramuses like you and Shodan just serve to remind me that hateful, spiteful, willful blind partisans really do exist--you're not some imaginary boogeyman invented by the left to keep liberal thinkers motivated. So I would never want to discourage you from posting, though I will of course keep reminding the mods of your (and Shodan's) open admissions of trolling, which wastes people's time and needs to be stronglly discouraged.

If anyone else, btw, can find a post of Starving Artist's in which he displays a positive reaction to something Obama did or said, I'd appreciate being linked to it, since SA is far too busy to supply me with such, even though it's fairly recent and fairly abundant. I would think it's rare enough that it would also stick out prominently in his memory, but maybe it sticks out in someone's. Just not in mine.

[Liberal]

I can't be sure, but I think all of his money, finally, was contributed to that campaign, and he himself felt so strongly about paying me to refrain from posting that he changed his mind and told me I could post AND keep the money, after which I informed him that I'd be donating most of it to Obama, anyway. So he and I are cool, far as I know.We are indeed. :) You were a man of your word, and we both learned valuable lessons.

[Shodan]

The first time I read what you quoted, I took it to mean that Shodan composed a post and then stopped to think about whether it would piss people off. He figured it would and decided to post it anyway. It was still his opinion, and pissing people off wasn't the reason he wrote it, so I didn't think of it as trolling.

Rereading it now, I wonder if I misread it. Mayhaps you'd better jump in, Shodan, and explain that post.No, this is pretty much it. I post some things in spite of the fact that it drives the Usual Suspects batshit, not because.

I don't post things that I don't mean. But, on some topics and with some Dopers, if I didn't say anything that would drive them out of their gourds, I wouldn't be able to discuss the topic at all. And I refuse to be silenced in that way. I am a member in good standing, I am entitled to my opinions, I do my best to present them in an articulate and reasoned way, and I am distinctly in the minority.

Some people just want an echo chamber hereabouts, and react like assholes whenever someone interrupts their Two Minutes Hate at Bush, or Sarah Palin, or whatever. Tough shit. I derive entertainment from watching them go ballistic at any irreverence towards their sacred cows.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So you're backtracking, are you? Now the entertainment value is not "sheer" (pure, unalloyed) but is in fact alloyed by such things as truth, sincerity, consistency, and so on? If you wrote something on the SD that did not get your antagonists upset but still represented your honest opinion, you would post it anyway? IOW, that you derive pleasures other than the pleasure of that "sheer" entertainment value?

Please check one:

LYING ABOUT "SHEER" ENTERTAINMENT VALUE BEFORE

LYING TO SAVE MY ASS FROM GETTING BOUNCED FOR TROLLING NOW

[Baldwin]

So you're backtracking, are you? Now the entertainment value is not "sheer" (pure, unalloyed) but is in fact alloyed by such things as truth, sincerity, consistency, and so on? If you wrote something on the SD that did not get your antagonists upset but still represented your honest opinion, you would post it anyway? IOW, that you derive pleasures other than the pleasure of that "sheer" entertainment value?

Please check one:

LYING ABOUT "SHEER" ENTERTAINMENT VALUE BEFORE

LYING TO SAVE MY ASS FROM GETTING BOUNCED FOR TROLLING NOWOr possibly he's changed his mind, either because of some intellectual process or because he's been touched by our concern. That would be a nice start, since otherwise he seems incapable of changing an opinion regardless of contrary facts and logic.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

"Mind"? "Intellectual"? "Touched"?

We're still talking about Shodan, aren't we?

[Shodan]

Or possibly he's changed his mind, either because of some intellectual process or because he's been touched by our concern. No, I haven't changed my mind at all. Invisible Wombat accurately stated my position. This nonsense about how I don't mean what I say is just crap whats-his-name made up.

Regards,
Shodan

[Stratocaster]

Shodan explained what he meant. God almighty, can we not parse that fucking post for the next two weeks to provide evidence that he didn't really mean that? Not every comment, written or spoken, is made with perfect clarity. I think his explanation is reasonable. I'm just as certain that there are those who will accept no explanation, despite the fact that there were several reasonable posters who read Shodan's post exactly as he apparently meant it.

So, Shodan, did you lie in that earlier post or was it in the later one? And are you still beating your wife? Sheesh...

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

. You don't seriously think I gave two shits about your 'clocking' me, do you?

I don't believe you ever gave a shit about anything anyone else has to say. But it sure would have made a fool out of me if you had linked to three strongly pro-Obama posts of yours in fifty-three seconds, wouldn't it? Or even a single post demonstrating that you had actually listened to someone's point, and conceded that it made the slightest impression on your world view. Now all we're left with is the evidence that you can't provide a single definitive cite for your open-minded acceptance of anyone's ideas, given limitless time, and this is all due to

A) the fact that you were lying in the first place, or

B) the fact that you are highly principled and will not yield this information under my duress, no matter how much it shows me to be wrong.

To help you out, though, I will open the thread I asked you to open, about liberals changing their minds by talking through issues with conservatives. You can't participate, of course (liberals, commies, pinkos, Democrats and Marxists only, I'm afraid) but maybe you can read it and learn a few things about changing your positions and still retaining your testicles.

[Contrapuntal]

See the post to which Shodan was responding that is linked in the OP.Thanks.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Shodan explained what he meant. God almighty, can we not parse that fucking post for the next two weeks to provide evidence that he didn't really mean that? Not every comment, written or spoken, is made with perfect clarity. I think his explanation is reasonable. I'm just as certain that there are those who will accept no explanation, despite the fact that there were several reasonable posters who read Shodan's post exactly as he apparently meant it.

So, Shodan, did you lie in that earlier post or was it in the later one? And are you still beating your wife? Sheesh...


I can accept that he didn't express himself very clearly, that he overstated the absolute degree to which the entertainment value of observing idiots go berserk constituted his purpose in making some of his posts, and would be glad to concede that he, then, would not be trolling. But he insists on sticking to his original wording, so what can I do?

[Revenant Threshold]

No, this is pretty much it. I post some things in spite of the fact that it drives the Usual Suspects batshit, not because. If it matters at all, fair enough from me. I hadn't considered you trollish up until this point anyway.

[Stratocaster]

I can accept that he didn't express himself very clearly, that he overstated the absolute degree to which the entertainment value of observing idiots go berserk constituted his purpose in making some of his posts, and would be glad to concede that he, then, would not be trolling. But he insists on sticking to his original wording, so what can I do?You could consider this a trivial impasse over a meaningless issue between two posters who can't stand each other, and move on?

[E-Sabbath]

This is not a Regards, Shodan pitting
This is only a tribute.

____________
Regards, Terri Brosius

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You could consider this a trivial impasse over a meaningless issue between two posters who can't stand each other, and move on?

It doesn't really matter a whole lot, does it? I've probably made too much of it already.

[Starving Artist]

Thus confirming my suspicions. You've never written a word remotely accepting of Obama, have you?http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10446584&postcount=13

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10405345&postcount=80

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10405268&postcount=31

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10058424&postcount=28

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10037283&postcount=2

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9701909&postcount=847

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9697003&postcount=829

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9607554&postcount=185

I could likely find more but it's an enjoyable and busy day and I don't have time.

...but maybe you can read it and learn a few things about changing your positions and still retaining your testicles. Or maybe I can learn them from you, eh?

I'll be looking forward to both your retraction and your apology.

[Starving Artist]

But it sure would have made a fool out of me if you had linked to three strongly pro-Obama posts of yours in fifty-three seconds, wouldn't it? Three strongly pro-Obama posts?

When did it go from 'You never said anything good about Obama' to 'Show me three strongly pro-Obama posts'? (And even this is in error; that silly 'clocking' thing you were doing was in regard to things I may have learned on the board.)

But having said that, you really are a dishonest little shit, aren't you? I'm a conservative. Why would you expect three strongly pro-Obama posts from me?

Well, I'll tell you why. You realized that I may...just may...have been telling the truth when I said I'd made comments favorable toward Obama, so you decided to move the goalposts.

Only problem is, you did it in a stupid way.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10446584&postcount=13

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10405345&postcount=80

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10405268&postcount=31

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10058424&postcount=28

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10037283&postcount=2

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9701909&postcount=847

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9697003&postcount=829

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9607554&postcount=185

I could likely find more but it's an enjoyable and busy day and I don't have time.

Or maybe I can learn them from you, eh?

I'll be looking forward to both your retraction and your apology.

Okay, let's review: in 15 -odd hours of searching you've unearthed several posts that praise Obama personally, for being well-spoken, likeable, charismatic, attractive, having a pleasant appearance, etc. To the extent that this what I was discussing, I owe you a profound apology. But piling up a heap of posts that mention Obama's name without calling him a terrorist Muslim isn't exactly what I asked for when I asked you to select your single most sweeping concession of Obama's virtues:

"I'd really like to see what you consider to be your most generous, least critical post about Obama." Why don't you pick from that selection the one post that most nearly qualifies as praise of his abilities in his forthcoming role as President? For those who won't wade through that heap of posts (I'm sure that was your intent in providing so many), most of them aren't even in praise of Obama at all, except as how he shines in comparison to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hell, if Starving Artist himself ran against Clinton, I'd have to think long and hard about whom to support.

An analogy for just a second: if I were asked to give a quote showing my high regard to John McCain's abilities to serve as President, and I quoted myself as saying "After a braindead, spineless ball of shit like George W. Bush, even an an unqualified hack like McCain promises to restore honest government to the White House, however unlikely a prospect that is," no one would claim that I was really praising McCain, right?" Here's the most recent of SA''s "pro-Obama" posts, for those of you who won't bother opening any of them:

I have to say I'm far less impressed with Hillary's so-called intellect after watching her run her campaign. She exhibited virtually no ability to think on her feet, to make adjustments when things went awry, and to stick with a game plan that clearly wasn't working because she couldn't seem to think of or choose an effective alternative.

Further, she, like her husband, is a prolific and unabashed liar. What diplomats or heads of state would believe anything she says? And even if they did, she's smug, arrogant, condescending and a know-it-all. These also are not qualities that make for a good SoS.

I'm trying to keep a positive attitude about Obama and I'm hoping he'll be the breath of fresh air that he seems to be and that he truly will bring about change we can all mostly be happy with, but what with his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff and now the prospect of Hillary as SoS, I'm finding myself far less comfortable than I expected to be at this stage of the game.

So that's two paragraphs of vigorous Hillary-bashing (to which I say: "GO, SA!") followed by one in which SA is "trying to keep a positive attitude about Obama" (as opposed to what? Threatening to assassinate him ASAP? The man has been elected President--for the sake of your mental health, you'd damn well better try to keep a positve attitude--it would be better if you could actuallly, you know, HAVE a positive attitude as well,) ending with some out and out bitching about his first two major appointments.

Now, normally, this would be no big deal, but since this is offered in the context of providing an ungenerous, uncritical comment about Obama as a President, not as a smiley dude with a nice family, and this is the kind of weak stuff he provides, I'd have to say, all in all, meh.

Still, you did manage to cough up a few hairballs that were closer to the middle of the political spectrum than I had remembered reading, and I am little surprised that you were able to embrace reality enough to acknowledge things which only truly crazy people would dispute (nice family, very likeable personally, effective low-key non-confrontational style, etc.). I had you pegged as deranged enough to be unable to acknowledge even simple truths like those personal ones you did acknowledge, but I'm still waiting for your first substantive agreement or concession that Obama's talking sense on some subject.

If you like, I can supply a list of topics that I, or other Obama-supporters, expressed in posts here that McCain might provide good leadership on.

[FinnAgain]

SA is "trying to keep a positive attitude about Obama" (as opposed to what? Threatening to assassinate him ASAP? The man has been elected President--for the sake of your mental health, you'd damn well better try to keep a positve attitude--it would be better if you could actuallly, you know, HAVE a positive attitude as well,)

Just like you did with Bush. Eh? Eh?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Three strongly pro-Obama posts?

When did it go from 'You never said anything good about Obama' to 'Show me three strongly pro-Obama posts'? (And even this is in error; that silly 'clocking' thing you were doing was in regard to things I may have learned on the board.)

But having said that, you really are a dishonest little shit, aren't you? I'm a conservative. Why would you expect three strongly pro-Obama posts from me?

Well, I'll tell you why. You realized that I may...just may...have been telling the truth when I said I'd made comments favorable toward Obama, so you decided to move the goalposts.

Only problem is, you did it in a stupid way.

As stated, I only asked for one, and only wanted one. I said that it would have been embarrassing to me if you had very quickly linked to three posts indicating some concession to Obama's policies, because I was disputing your seeming claim that such posts were so frequent and so plentiful that anyone could easily locate your open-minded thoughtful posts about his proposed policies, most of which would be dissenting (because you're a known conservative) but at least some of which would be respectful, if not positive (because you're such a thoughtful open-minded sort of guy).

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Just like you did with Bush. Eh? Eh?

Matter of fact, yes. To my ever-lasting shame, I was a passionate supporter of his after 9/11. For maybe a year, I wanted to give him anything he asked for as long as he was searching, as he claimed, for Bin Ladin. I suspect that's the reason I came to hate him so much, when I realized that he was using my passionate support (and that of many, many other Democrats) to justify his own evil, twisted ambitions, resulting in my country's unending global disgrace.

But for a few months there, you couldn't find a more loyal Bush-supporter than I was.

[Starving Artist]

Okay, let's review: in 15 -odd hours of searching...Took five minutes.

But piling up a heap of posts that mention Obama's name without calling him a terrorist Muslim isn't exactly what I asked for...Given that I've never made even the slightest comment calling him a Muslim terrorist, I'm wondering why the notion would occur to you?

"I'd really like to see what you consider to be your most generous, least critical post about Obama." As you've shown with each of my attempts to show you what you'd 'like to see', it would be a total waste of time. You would misrepresent what I'd said, you'd leap to ficticious conclusions, you'd move the goalposts, and you'd equivocate like a motherfuck. :D

Here's the most recent of SA''s "pro-Obama" posts, for those of you who won't bother opening any of them:...Translation: 'Since I'm afraid SA might come off looking better than I thought if you read his cites, I'm gonna pick out the most recent one (as if that made any difference) and misconstrue it so that passing readers will be more favorably inclined to my impotent argument.'

...followed by one in which SA is "trying to keep a positive attitude about Obama" (as opposed to what? Threatening to assassinate him ASAP? No, dumbass. (And you wonder why I treat certain posters around here with disrespect :rolleyes:.) Why would you even think such a thing?

I'll tell you why.

You don't!

You know perfectly well that I meant I'm hoping he'll be less the leftie ideologist and more the man of the people...just like I said in the posts I cited.

Now, having said that, I have, as a matter of fact, expressed (and still hold) considerable fear that he may be assassinated. It is my urgent wish and hope that he is not.

And now, having said that, you really are a detestable dumbass, aren't you. Can you still be bought out for the princely sum of $500 measly dollars?)

--it would be better if you could actuallly, you know, HAVE a positive attitude as well...Having a positive attitude will depend on his actions. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm far from convinced. I don't see how this is unreasonable.

I'd have to say, all in all, meh.What a surprise.

I had you pegged as deranged enough to be unable to acknowledge even simple truths like those personal ones you did acknowledge...So you were wrong. Again.

If you like, I can supply a list of topics that I, or other Obama-supporters, expressed in posts here that McCain might provide good leadership on.And what, exactly, does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[cosmosdan]

This is a Do Not Feed The Trolls mini-rant.

The SDMB sure does love to entertain some trolls. I want to pit all the people who bother to continue this tradition. This isn't specifically about Regards, Shodan. But he is surely a top contender for Trolling-est Doper, and the subject of today's DNFTT PSA. I don't mean to lump all conservative posters in together as trolls, either. There are enough who can express an intelligent opinion to outnumber the trolls. That's a rare thing, and part of why I love the SDMB. BUT

We could use less of this. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10498381&postcount=227)

This is not debate. This is somebody caught in a trap. * This is what Regards, Shodan and his breed are all about. Making you waste your time trying to unravel a ball of yarn that they are actively tying more knots into as you work. It is a crack up to watch the first few times. But after a while, you notice that it is a pattern that clogs up thread after thread around here. They aren't dumb, so you aren't actually correcting them or enlightening them. It is an intentional routine they perform.

Imagine the things that could be accomplished with all the time these brilliant minds spend playing semantic games with the Dope's trolls. You people are better this.

New Rule: No more wasting time refuting the likes of Regards, Shodan. IGNORE THEM ALL. We can't change them. They love trolling the SDMB, and have been refining it longer than many of us have been posting. But what we can do is read right by them. They're a bratty child pulling at your pant-leg during a conversation with another adult. Just give them a pat on their pointy little heads and scoot them along toward the playground. If the poster is Regards, Shodan (we can identify the rest as we go, if it pleases), you can safely assume that you are not going to get Integrity with that post. You are going to get some backward tricksy nonsense dragging back and forth for a page in the middle of an otherwise good thread.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

*If I really need to break down the stupidity going on there, I can post again later I guess... It seems rather blatant.

I agree that ignore them is the best approach. There are several posters that I can't seem to have a reasonable discussion with. For the most part I ignore their posts or , if they seem to be behaving, I'll make an attempt at discourse without any real expectations. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend time in a useless discussion that isn't going anywhere. If I spend too much time beating my head against a wall it's as much my fault as it is theirs. I try to avoid it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Rather than prolong your agony, I'll end my participation in this now- tiresome thread (tiresome to keep writing, and certainly tiresome to read) by making a few, perhaps superfluous, closing remarks (after which you can open a whole nother thread, if you like, though I won't promise to post there, only if there's any promise of remotely new material to respond to).

1) I hope you realize that you have done exactly what you accuse me of doing in this snip: You would misrepresent what I'd said, you'd leap to ficticious conclusions, you'd move the goalposts, and you'd equivocate like a motherfuck when you immediately procede to translate my remark into Starving Artist bullshit, as follows:

Translation: 'Since I'm afraid SA might come off looking better than I thought if you read his cites, I'm gonna pick out the most recent one (as if that made any difference) and misconstrue it so that passing readers will be more favorably inclined to my impotent argument.'

Misrepresent? Check--you call it translation. Leap to fictitious conclusions? Check--examining closely one representative passage is somehow unfair to a casual reader? On what planet? Move goalposts? Check--that's a given with you. Equivocate like a motherfuck? Check--that's your middle name. No, I simply gave your most recent self-quotation, thinking that would represent fairly your most current position, which I then proceeded to analyze in a pretty objective way. If there's any part of my analysis, which you characterize as a deliberate misconstruction, that's faulty, I'd sure like to see you explain what the fault is:So that's two paragraphs of vigorous Hillary-bashing (to which I say: "GO, SA!") followed by one in which SA is "trying to keep a positive attitude about Obama" (as opposed to what? Threatening to assassinate him ASAP? The man has been elected President--for the sake of your mental health, you'd damn well better try to keep a positve attitude--it would be better if you could actuallly, you know, HAVE a positive attitude as well,) ending with some out and out bitching about his first two major appointments.

Did you not include two (of three) paragraphs of Hillary-bashing in what was allegedly a post noting some virtues of Obama? Did you have anything substantial to say about Obama in the final paragraph, other than praising yourself for making the effort to hope he does well and then bashing his first two major appointments? We're supposed to interpret this as support? Praise? Admiration? Please remember, this is YOU selecting from thousands of posts the one post that expresses your fairness to Obama, and it's nearly all about Hilary and Obama's lousy staffing choices. If you're not actually retarded, you're assuming all of us must be.

2) And sorry to disappoint again, but I think the Mods will not allow any more bidding to silence members. Should have doubled or tripled Liberal 's offer when you had the chance.

Now you get the final word. If I may, a request: could we have another meltdown like your previous post, to which a specific rebuttal would be again superfluous? Thank you.

[elucidator]

Once again SA masterfully punctures the hypocrisies and pretensions of the left! Mallard Fillmore, eat your heart out!

(Hey, its almost Christmas, and Santa is watching! I'll never make the "nice" list, but maybe if he checks it twice, I can get to the "naughty" list and off the "shoot on sight" list!)

[spinky]

This nonsense about how I don't mean what I say is just crap whats-his-name made up.Regards, Shodan! Just popped in to say I don't consider you a troll. The idea that saying your posts provide "sheer entertainment value" means you don't really believe what you're posting is fucking idiotic. Also, watching prr lose so badly to Starving Artist is sheer entertainment. And that's a statement I can believe in. I have an idea: I'll wait until he responds to this tomorrow and then crow about how many hours it took him to come up with his response! Zinger.

(but mostly, I just wanted to open a post with "Regards, Shodan!")

[Zoe]

One of the Democrats in this thread posted this:

Your posts particularly inspire me to work hard at ensuring that you and those you approve of remain far from having power in this society...

I don't think that's what the Democrats stand for or what the Obama Administration has in mind or what Democracy is about.

MNO Democrat.
L,MNO Liberal either.

Hi, Shodan! Hey, Starving Artist! I heard a rumor the other day that Republicans and social conservatives don't really want to make me get pregnant and learn how to hunt. Is that true? I will donate to your next campaign if you will let me keep the trees in my yard.

[Starving Artist]

Hi, Shodan! Hey, Starving Artist! ...

I will donate to your next campaign if you will let me keep the trees in my yard.How's about you let me carve our initials in 'em instead? ;)

And thanks for the good word, ntucker.

[mswas]

Dear fuckface,

Shodan is not a troll, and where the fuck do you get off telling me who to ignore? How arrogant and petty do you have to be to announce to a whole message board that it's a moral imperative to shun somebody you don't like?

love,
Seth

I ignore a lot of people I don't like, they ignore me. What's the problem?

[Ensign Edison]

I ignore a lot of people I don't like, they ignore me. What's the problem?

I didn't say there's a problem with ignoring people. I said there's a problem with announcing to everybody else who they must ignore.

[Peanut Gallery]

Aaaanyway ... this thread needs to die. It has turned into a shining example of exactly what I want to see less of. :p But at least it's all in its own dedicated pit thread. I haven't been around for a couple of days ... did it stop happening in the other forums yet?! No? Crap. I tried.

I suppose if this particular trainwreck serves to remind anyone in the future to think twice before they bother to respond to some of the more asinine posters around here ... that's progress. Before you go typing out that 1000 word quoted, cited, and formatted reply, carefully stating and restating and translating your probably-obvious point ... to somebody who is clearly just picking a nit to get under your skin and sidetrack the point at hand ... think of this shitty thread.


And Edison ... you will do as you are told.

[Shodan]

So, you started a thread to tell everyone not to respond, and now you are posting to it so it will die.


Okaaayyy...

Regards,
Shodan

[spinky]

So, you started a thread to tell everyone not to respond, and now you are posting to it so it will die.No, at this point his best bet is to make it drag on as long as possible, if he wants it to be "a reminder of what happens when you respond to the more asinine" OP's. A brilliant plan if I ever heard one.