Chat/Comment thread

How is trolling different from posting something to make the other person mad?

Trolling is saying something or taking a position that is contrary to your own position. Trolling would be like if Buz came out and said "haha fuckers. I'm actually an atheist and have been trolling you guys all along.". It would be more like "lying" if we want to dumb it down to a singular word that is more readily understandable. Or, perhaps, like playing devils advocate with malicious intent.

Um, no. That's not right. Trolling is not role-playing (tho it can be).Here's your own quote: Paraphrased: "A troll is someone who posts inflammatory messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response".Or like I said:"its when you post something to make the other person mad"If you're not contributing to the discussion, but you're just throwing funny one-liners out there as a rub against your opponents, then you're trolling. You do it all the time.

Wrong again (at least in how it pertains to me). What you are trying to say is that my primary objective here at EvC is just to rub people the wrong way. What is the reason this accusation started? because Moose labeled me a troll for no other reason than because I used the word shit a few times in my OP, which in and of itself is a libelous accusation.Here is an example of trolling described. So i will say again: if I were to troll EvC, I would do nothing but sling shit. I could, for example, make a bunch of posts claiming that the earth was 6000 years old and jesus was a communist jew. Being offensive to a particular subset of people does not a troll make. If I were a troll, I would have to be a troll to everyone.Go to 4chan and learn what a troll is.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

The funniest bullshit I have read all week. We have already maintained in recent weeks here that definitions are not as important as what people who use the word believe the word to mean. Example: Bison v. Buffalo Absolutely, 100%, probably every time you get on this site. ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have not shown that you understand what a troll is. You call me a Troll all the time merely for not agreeing with your ever bountiful and un-evidenced reason. 10 people here say the sky is blue, and I say it is green; is not an example of a troll. You should take your own advice and figure it out.Since you have admitted to be an asshole does that mean we can call you one? So if you participated on the Debate Team in high school, and you received a topic to defend that was contrary to your own position then you were being a Troll at a debate competition?
Are WWII reenactors from the USA who dress up as 3rd Reich SS troops, trolls? What about confederate reenactors from Wisconsin? BUSTED!!!

No. Its when the primary intent of the particular message you're trolling with, is to provoke. Not your primary intent of being here.I'm not saying you "are a troll", I'm saying that you "do troll". Not everything you post is trolling... but much of it is. I don't think that's why Moose suspended you. I think its because he thought that the purpose of your OP was provoking readers into an emotional response, i.e. trolling. Now, your OP didn't read that way to me, it did seem sincere, but I don't think Moose read it that way.And I brought this up because you do troll a lot, and you were saying that you didn't... which is now explained by you showing that you don't really know what trolling is. Dude, those are ways to troll specific subsections of 4chan. That's not a description of what trolling is. For example, 4chan.org/v/, the subsection "v", is for video games. How would you provoke emotional responses in that section? Start a console war or say that video games are not art. Then people will respond angrily. Wrong. Everytime you respond in a way to not promote the discussion, but instead to make the person mad, then you are trolling in that particular message. Maybe you'll troll 5 times one day, maybe you'll go a whole day without trolling. It depends if you're doing it to provoke an emotional response or not. Wrong again. You could just troll one specific individual one time. That's stupid. You've already provided a definition from wiki, and I already know what trolling is.

Atermis Entreri was the gayest character in Forgotten Realms... I bet you'd totally suck his dick!

Is it though?I felt no emotional response, that did not move me in the slightest. was that trolling?BTW I am a top, bottoms suck MY dick.

I don't know jar, we might want 1 or 2 around just in case we have to blow up somebodies mothership in hurry or maybe divert an asteroid or something.In practical terms, the cat is out of the bag and the best that we can do is to keep them out of as many hands as possible.I agree that nukes are the bluntest of instruments after the plague and all the more reason to not let some 8th century theocracy have them.I also wish that we could keep the world a peaceful place with a legion of diplomats drinking wine and eating cheese but I don't think we are there yet.

As long as US voters think that "THE US" can keep or make the world safe, "THE US" will fail.AbE:And yes, the cat is out of the bag and it's time we learn to live with others having them and work to get rid of the ones we have.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Unless said mothership has shields at full. You're right, the cat is out fo the bag, but the question is, how do we justify telling other countries that they can't have nukes while we sit on our unnecessarily large stash? If my enemies had a huge weapons advantage, I'd sure as hell want to be able to inflict as much damage as they could.If we want to be able to tell any country they can't have nukes, getting rid of ours would make our position less hypocritical, and would also make it less likely for one of our weapons to go "missing."History has shown that "defensive" nukes only creates an arms race. But as long as anyone has them, all other countries, 8th century theocracies or not, are going to want to have them, if only for parity. Just wait until that mothership shows up.

It is not just the US. It is the Western world. Countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt and Libia have to get in line. Should we respect their way governing?I agree that we as humans are doing a piss poor job at managing our affairs but you must agree that the freer nations of the world are better than the others.Why are you so insistant that it is all the fault of the US? Are they not trying to bring these rogue nations into the game? Look at China. Play the game and have a better life.Sustainability is another issue but we all need to be pulling in the same direction before we can properly address that.

I do not say that it is all the US's fault, only that as a US citizen it is the US that I care about most and have the best chance and right to change.It is the US that if I am to act as a citizen, I MUST criticize and judge.

I don't think every other country wants them and the ones that want them now are still going to want them if the US had none. They will never have parity and having nukes will only increase their chances of getting bombed with regular bombs.I agree that if the US got rid of all of it's nukes the world would be a safer place but only because they could protect their interests without them. As we have seen it is not so pleasant either.

Yes, I agree but the US and the West are more right than Iran.Edited by Dogmafood, : 'are'