Simpered and dissembled at first, now not only ignores any opposing evidence and analysis provided, but outright patronises and insults the people who provide evidence.
Appears to be under the age limit by virtue of displayed intelligence and grammar.
Founds his entire position on it’s inherant lack of evidence; purports that the burden of proof is on “the other side” and when confronted with the mountain that exists, declares it not good enough.
The guy is here for the lulz and he’s getting it.
The discussion doesn’t bring anything new or beneficial to the SDMB - we’ve already hashed this discussion out so many times, there’s not much to be learned. And neither does he.
So, the sooner he goes away, the less lulz for the troll.
If he doesn’t make an attempt at answering my three basic questions then I am done feeding him. Would be nice if he threw a capital in there now and then.
In my experience with these folks, its not so much that they are trolling as:
They think ‘just asking (leading) questions’ is a legitimate argument technique
They really are as ignorant as they seem. They also vastly overestimate their cognitive abilities and basic knowledge to the point of telling experts in the field they are wrong.
In their online arguments: Its not about progress, its not about convincing others, its not about getting questions answered, its all about the pwnage.
While I am not in favor of a ban, I would point out the very disingenuous nature of reef shark’s posting on page 1 of that thread versus the last page. Its starts out with the ‘Oh gee, can some smart person answer my 911 questions’ but its not long before the true colors of 911 CT-ery shine through.
I’d just like to point out this bit of showing up on false pretenses.
Nor am I. Maybe he’s trolling, and maybe he isn’t. But so far he appears only to be deluded. If he were trolling, that would mean that he doesn’t believe what he’s posting and only going for the reaction. Hard to prove.
If he is a troll, then I don’t think I’ll nibble anymore. If he isn’t, then there’s no point in continuing until he provides the evidence supporting his position.
In general the bar for banning new posters is lower than for those who have been around awhile, and we don’t have a problem bouncing someone who seems unable to form a coherent thought. However, we don’t like to ban people simply because they’re less than brilliant or obstinate or hold unpopular opinions. “Trolling” means somebody who posts inflammatory remarks he doesn’t actually subscribe to solely to provoke people. So far I’m not seeing evidence of that here. We’ll keep an eye on things, naturally; in the meantime, if this person bugs you, don’t respond.
Is there any chance of you placing the best of the worst in a bonus thread? It’d be something to warm the cockles on a cold winter’s evening, or a miserable Sunday afternoon!
In my opinion, the difference between reef shark and that jesse-whatever that just got kicked out is that reef shark is sticking nicely to his one idiotic thread instead of spraying his shit everywhere. When they remain that easily ignored, I say let 'em stick around for a while. Not that my vote matters.
