Trolling for fun and prophet

Now, I don’t actually think sfworker’s a troll here nor do I much care, but he does seem to be fitting other people’s closer definitions: he is asking a nominally legitimate question that, upon inquiry, turns out to be unanswerable by the OP’s devious and contorted definitions of terms. Moreover, his subject is one that people usually get fairly agitated over, so there’s no little passion in that thread, which sfworker seems to be enjoying richly. You can almost hear him chortling as people step into various piles of rhetorical doo-doo he’s left behind him on the trail.

That said, I think he’s performing a legitimate service, as I often think real trolls do. (I get why It’s Good To Ban Trolls, I do, but this is what’s good about them sometimes.) He’s providing us with the service of discussing literalism in studying religious texts, and he’s illustrating some of the pitfalls thereof, even if his own contributions to the thread are kinda weak and risible.

I’ve gotten banned myself from a messageboard or two, on the accusation of being a troll. (One of these messageboards was one I started, mind you.) I deny being a troll (I think that was just shorthand for “provocative prick,” to which charge I cheerfully plead guilty) but I think we need provovative pricks from time to time, to articulate dumbshit that no one wants to voice himself, but which it’s interesting to refute nonetheless. Maybe the other costs of trollling make it economically productive just to ban trolls entirely, but their function as devil’s advocate is one I kind of admire.

181 views, 0 replies – your agent provocateur chops need, um, sharpening.

It appears that no one is feeding this troll :slight_smile:

But, seriously, the word “troll” gets thrown around far too much on messageboards, for people who aren’t real trolls, but just naive, provocative, or expressing unpopular views. And some troll-like posts can lead to very interesting discussions, regardless of the OP’s intentions.

Its not really all that fun. Too much specialized equipment needed for surface-walkers.

My favorite part of that thread is when he dismisses the refutation of his claim of “Christianity” requiring acceptance of Jesus to gain entrance of heaven, by pointing out that he doesnt mean Catholicism, but “mainstream Christianity.”

Given that about 1/2 of all Christians are Catholic, that’s about as mainstream as it gets.

And I don’t think that sfworker is a troll, per se, just someone used to discussions with people weakminded enough to be impressed with his evasion and sophistry.

That would only be untrue in cases of asymptotic liner regressions of the philosophical model. A more juridical approach to the ontology of the underlying paradigm is probably warranted.

You know, Bryan, I find I’m having trouble believing a single word you say. Why is that?

The biblical reversions of the pre-Lutheran contretemps proscribe analyses of agri-societal feudalistic ontology.


I think I understand two words in that – “of” and “the” – but I could be wrong.

[John Cleese] Now … the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.[/JC]