Why, thank you. And the last time I checked, I was male. (looks down, unzzzzzzzp! Yup, no changes there. zzzzzzp! owowowow unzzzzzzp, stuff, stuff, zzzzzzzp!) Mrs. Qadgop, I’ve got a booboo! A little help?
Ahhh. . .
I feel much better now. And you’re right Qadgop and Tamerlane, I really shouldn’t let her bother me. So I won’t.
There are those who say The Pit is bad for the SDMB. I’m glad it’s here. It’s perfect for occasions like these.
I felt the same thing with 'Uigi’s post. But I do not think it’s worth the time to argue with that.
To you and to Biggirl: Relax…Calm down…and maybe think of some imaginary torture you want to do to those people.
Thanks Spoofe, that does answer my questions.
Excuse me while I hijack this thread briefly, I don’t think it’s worth starting a new one.
But three cheers for tomndeb for his post of 6-17, 4:52 p.m. . I try not to ever let myself get frustrated to the point of ragging on someone. But my god, sjgouldrocks is driving me fucking nuts! The fact that he is ostensibly on “my side” ( unless he really is a clever sock puppet/troll ), makes him ten times more frustrating to me than AWC could ever be. And did he have to go and taint Stephen J. Gould’s name with his obstinate illogic :rolleyes: ?
sigh
Okay, that’s out of my system 
. Sorry for the hijack.
- Tamerlane
Is everyone on this message board who has an unpopular opinion labeled a “troll?” It seems to me that AWC really believes what she is saying. I personally think it is twisted.
But if I went on the “minoritie haters message board” and posted that I loved minorities, would I be a troll or just a fella with a different opinion?
I have some unique opinions. Please dont label me a troll if I ever feel like speaking up.
JB
If I may, briefly.
I believe that in the thread in question and here the reason for the troll label is identified, to whit AWC does not just hold an unpopular opinion but rather she
(a) engages in hit and run posting in GD above all, although also GQ. In both fora one is expected to support statements with proper cites and the like, if necessary. Above all in GD one is expected to engage the debate in a fatual manner. You will note that AWC never does so.
(b) she has continued in said behaviour after more than once being called on it (I mean in the argument not in a moderation sense, which is none of my business). That suggests that she has no interest in an actual debate, for whatever reasons.
In the eyes of many this qualifies as trollish behaviour. It is not, then the content of the opinion --you will note no one has called greeny a troll, for example-- but the lack of honest engagement in the discussion which is the prime characteristic of this board.
Depends, if the charter of said board was in re fighting ignorance (from their POV) and required substantive arguments to be made (again from their POV) and all you did was hit and run posts of no genuine content, then yes, you would be a troll. On the other hand if you argued your position within the context of the guidelines, you would not.
Clear?
I notice that she’s always making sort-of backhanded comments, saying things, and suggesting more.
Why not tell us what you REALLY think, AWC?
What Collounsbury said. You need a history of certain behavior to earn the label of troll, and IMHO, AWC has earned it. Drive-by postings, ignoring pertinent questions, not addressing concrete, well-documented rebuttals, failing to even define your terms upon repeated requests, and taking other’s quotes completely out of context to “claim victory” and then disappearing until the next drive-by posting or starting a new thread on essentially the same topic certainly scream Troll!!! to me. Sorry for the run-on sentence.
Unpopular opinions are rampant here. They’re what make the board so enjoyable for many of us. But the actions of the poster in question seems to me to be similar to the behavior of the individual who pulls the fire alarm in the dorm at night so they can see the spectacle of the crowd spilling out all over, and the arrival of the bright red fire trucks.
I’m not sure that I would accuse her of being a troll or of being a racist.
I tend to include intent among the requirements for trolling and I don’t get the impression that she is here for the sole purpose of making people mad.
Similarly, I am not sure that a willfull ignorance makes her a racist.
Certainly, her behavior has been troll-like in her habit of drive-by postings and her refusal to provide actual information to support her position (other than her “self-explanatory” photo links–yeeesh).
On the other hand, she may simply lack the intelligence to see past what seems “obvious” to her and this may be the way that she deals with the frustration of not being sufficiently articulate to persuade us that her “obvious” position is the correct one.
Her positions do come out looking racist and her behavior has been trollish, but I am reluctant (without further evidence) to put the labels on her when I do not know her actual motivation.
OTOH, pain in the ass and inarticulate twit (with, perhaps, a hint of cowarice) do apply to her posts regardless of motivation.
tomndebb you might be right. It is possible that she is not intelligent enough to be a troll, but I just don’t think so. To me, there seems to be a method to her posting style, that makes me think it’s not lack of grey matter that defines her. So, to put it more succinctly, I believe she is trolling to get reactions. I have no opinion as to whether she really is a racist or not, since I don’t think we can know what a troll really believes.
I guess it’s the element of doubt that you point out that keeps me from running to the mods about her. That and the fact that I’m trying to not get enmeshed in this whole thing. Oops, too late! Damn, damn, damn.
Hmm…from what I’ve learned on this thread, in order not to tell the difference between an Skimo and a Watutsi, I need to get dual Harvard PHDs on biology and anthropology.
Thanx for clearing that up.
That is not true, RedFury, although learning how to spell a group’s name might make your point appear to have a basis in reality.
(Had you paid attention to the myriad discussions on this subject, you would note that there are loose groupings of people that we can arbitrarily divide into different groups. The point is that the divisions *are[/] arbitrary. One person will put Irish and Sri Lankans into the “white” or “Caucasian” category while another person will exclude Southern Italians from the “white” group. Other people would place Ibos from Africa, Andaman Islanders from Southeast Asia, and Fiji Islanders from the Pacific into a “black” or “Negro” category even though we have solid evidence that they are more closely related to other groups than they are to each other. Since there is no fixed, permanent, unchanging, and indisputable method of defining the categories, it would seem that claiming some “reality” for those categories (outside human-imposed cultural definitions) is a fruitless exercise.)