While definitions vary, I’d say that posting deliberately inflammatory comments, especially those not held by the poster, simply to garner a reaction is a pretty good starting point.
Fenris
I completely botched that. Starting from scratch:
While definitions vary, I’d say that defining trolling as when one posts deliberatly inflammatory comments that they pretend to hold simply to garner a negative reaction is a starting point for a definition.
In other words: FatherJohn (aka Cyberian?) AFIK does not have an SUV fixation. But he knew it would piss people off so he started trolling around the Board pretending to be an anti-SUV psychotic, starting fights about SUVs, simply to watch people get annoyed.
If that’s not trolling…
Fenris
AceOfSpades
…
C) An unadmitted parodist which we cannot prove is a parody, therefore upholding our position of undetectable parodies. This is absurd, as it lets unadmitted parodist get off scott-free! I’m not sure what the penalty is for making people with more posts than you look silly, but in all probability it’s more Banning.
Remember, either you’re with us or against us. As you’ve implied, this implies no implicit criticism of the board or the glorious rules therein, which are always right. Also, the moderators, only more so.l
My reply:
AceOfSpades, are you aware that your choice © and your last paragraph reflect that taggert’s style is rubbing off on you?
I think taggert is right on with what he says that too many people in America believe in the many opinions he states.
But then I think he is probably the most brilliant troll on this or any board. He hasn’t slipped out of character yet.
This is the best thread I’ve seen here in a very long time!! I have noticed the same people who claim that tag annoys them back on page one are still showing up on page three!!
To paraphrase the title of a record easily found in the .99 cent bin: “Please Taggert, Don’t hurt 'em!” (but keep up the good work!)
Now watch this drive.
“Why, we’ll whip up a Number Six on 'em!”-- Our Hero
Number Six? That’s where we going whoopin’ and hollerin’ and shootin’ and bustin’ up the town!
The reason I don’t break character is because I have character. My opinions and the way I express them are no different than Ann Coulter’s books, other than she is a better writer than I am.
And personally I think that my opinions, when kept in context, are probably more consistent than most of the multi-thousand post folks around here who can’t seem to understand that there is no requirement to following me around the boards and pointing out to everyone how tired they are of me. Well gee. Ya think? Fine, you don’t like my opinion, or you think I am here to aumes you? No. I am here for my own reasons, to say what is on my mind freely.
Yeah, the folks who own the board own it and can ban me if they want to, for no reason or any reason they choose. But I started this thread to point out that I have objected to being banned for being a parodist, satirist or whatever, simply because it isn’t true. There are in fact people in the world with my opinion who express it the way I do. My objection may be worth nothing to someone else, but the ability to record my objection seems to me to be something.
And I’d also like to point out that the people claiming that I am a “troll” and liking this for amusement value because they believe that it is satire that they agree with as satire, are in fact themselves trolling to get me banned: they are clearly liberals who wish to characterize my work as satire and parody, even though they know that is against the rules, and against my insistence, because they know that I am serious and are trying as trolls themselves to stir up more ruckus.
Man, I hoped aumes was another sly reference like “now watch this drive”, but Babelfish says it doesn’t mean anything in French. I guess it was just a typo.
:smack: amuse he wrote sheepishly. Its all the fault of those bleeting heart liberals. Bah! But even President Bush sometimes messes words up.
Coulter asserts that Iraq shuould be invaded because a Canadian child of Iranian descent tried to burn off the fringes of his sneakers while on a plane over the USA.
taggert asserts that Coulter brilliantly articulates the prinicpled ideology of the conservative movement.
Nuff said.
None of the above, I’m afraid. Taggert is clearly a shatirist. Anyone spewing this much shit requires new terminology.
(Underlining mine --DG)
I should just like to point out, taggert, old top, that you invited us by opening this thread. You may very well be the worst attention whore on the boards. It’s our fault, of course, for encouraging you, but you’re such fun.
Really, mods, please don’t drive taggert away. I’m just beginning to see that this thread is probably the whoosh to end all whooshes. I’m not even mad at taggert anymore. I’m willing now to cater to taggert’s love of seeing his own handle…um…handled. 
My attention whore rating is only 195, and can only increase by one per minute. I do think that it would be only honest to say that I do like positive attention. There hasn’t been much in this thread. Goes more toward my martyr complex. The President has started his August vacation, and will return right after labor day. I predict a big market upswing, lower unemployment, lower crime, lower taxes and deficits to follow. I am very optimistic about these things.
In fact, only eight of the posters in this thread have a lesser attention whore rating than I do. My most virulent critics have ratings in the thousands.
Taggert, you heroine addict, if you check with STATS, you’ll find your formula quite outdated.
The formula that most acknowledge as best is PEDERA, or Posts Per Day * Earned Response Average.
In your case, you currently have a 6.79 posts per day. Nice, but not in say, Esprix’s class. But look at your response rating of over 10! That’s world class, for a PEDERA of 67.9. As no one else this is even over 50, you are a lock for rookie PEDERAst of the year.
Congratulations,
Ace
Thanks for the clarification taggert. I have to disagree with you regarding
“inappropriate dress” for court. It’s certainly not wise to go to court in sloppy clothes, although that’s more likely evidence of stupidity than evidence of guilt. As for tattoos, irrelevant. Too many people have them, in places that aren’t easily covered. Again, not evidence of guilt or of being a criminal “type.” Certainly it doesn’t help anybody’s case to appear stoned in court, but being nervous or “shifty” while testifying can be attributed to merely being…nervous, or scared. Again, not by itself evidence of guilt. It may contribute to a juries decision, but it’s not automatically a sign of a criminal “type.” After all, some of the most heinous criminals in history were impeccably dressed and extremely self confident.
[church lady]
Could it be…
[/church lady]
nah.
Originally posted by Taggert-And I think that you are slightly misconstruing both Ann Coulter’s statements and the Republican party line. Annie (get yer gun) has said that she wants to forcibly convert members of Islam, not real Americans. And the Republican party line is really determined by the actions of its leaders, not a platform even the leaders have never bothered to read. The head of the Republican party is our glorious leader, President George Walker Bush. And he has designated as his spokesman and deputy Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney’s statements are clear that dissent is highly dangerous and unpatriotic, and he is right. To say that Cheney’s statements (Ashcroft’s too) are not authorized and the real position of the party is to ignore the real facts on the ground. We are at war. A war of terror against the Islamicists and a cultural war for moral clarity. I will pray for your soul and salvation. (I am, however, in favor of separation of church and state, as I don’t want some papist conspiracy getting to be in charge.)
I knew I had seen this on the thread. Sounds like taggert and Coulter both want a return to the McCarthy era, with a large dose of the Inquisition added for good measure.
Ick.
What a great thread… thanks, Taggert! It made my morning.
laughing loud and long
It’s official… Taggert is SDMB’s answer to Eminem. Our very own Slim Shady.
Don’t ban him, we can use the entertainment value, but Ye Gods people, don’t take him seriously!.
laughing
Just because I’m a carpenter doesn’t mean I’m stupid. I know what rookie PEDERAST of the year means. And so do the rest of us. This rating doesn’t imply that I am an attention whore, but rather that I like to bugger little boys. Well I don’t like to bugger little boys. In fact, you made up the response rate statistic, at least I couldn’t find it, to compare me to Esprix aka The Gay Guy. Are you also implying that he is committing illegal acts? No, this is too obviously satire, or an attempt at it. Why aren’t the usual posters demanding your banning? We can only speculate. But maybe they agree with you. Well, since you are so clearly a troll, I am going to refuse to feed the troll further! Hmmph!