🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:45:39 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:39:35 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote: 
> > ========================================================== 
> > A brief guide to flame/trolling 
> > 
> > APPENDIX: A brief guide to flame/trolling 
> > 
> > (TLDR? Download this text or save the link: 
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/flame-trolling ). 
> > 
> > "The Song of the Smug Academic" documents a period in the early 1980s when 
> > PJ Ross, and a gang of his fellow residents of alt.usenet.kooks, took over 
> > rec.arts.poems (RAP), using flame/trolling to get the latter group's 
> > members to either accept their leadership or leave. (They later tried 
> > taking over aapc as well, through crossposting, but that's another story 
> > [or poem]). It may be hard for someone a decade later to understand how 
> > and why this flame/trolling worked. Fortunately, we have on board PJ's 
> > newest recruit, the 'generic troll' to answer the 
> > first question by writing a typical sample flame/troll for us. So, take 
> > it away, GT: 
> > 
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:11:01 PM UTC-4, generic troll @hotmail.com wrote 
> > in Message <523dd32c$0$1206$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com>: 
> > 
> > > It's not my fault that you demonstrated the ridiculous contortions you 
> > > sometimes make words go through in order to pretend that they fit your 
> > > uniformed idea of metrical regularity, 
> > 
> > Of course, the above is not a comment on the poem in this thread, but 
> > something from another thread entirely. Which illustrates the first, most 
> > important, technique of flame/trolling: Keep saying the same thing about 
> > and to your target, but not in the same place. keep switching it from thread to thread. 
> > 
> > This technique has enormous advantages. First, it's easy: the troll can 
> > just keep copy/pasting the same message over and over again (the way the 
> > 'generic troll' has been doing the past couple of weeks). 
> > 
> > Second, with minimal effort, the troll disrupts as many threads as 
> > possible: every one, in fact, in which the target dares to post something 
> > (also the way the 'generic trol'l has been doing the past couple of weeks. 
> > Disrupting all the threads in which a target posts would not only 
> > discourage the target from posting; it would also make all the other 
> > readers of the thread stop reading; and both target and other readers, 
> > therefore, more likely to give up on the group. 
> > 
> > Third, the troll never has to prove anything or back anything up, as the 
> > readers of the thread have no idea what he's even talking about, much less 
> > its veracity. The troll can not only claim whatever he wants, but claim 
> > that whatever he's claimed - that the target is a poetaster, a pedophile, or whatever, has already been proven or 'demonstrated' somewhere; and the reader has no way of knowing whether or not that's the case, Even if the target goes to the pains of rebutting the troll's claims, it makes no 
> > difference: the troll will just run off and post the same thing in other threads. 
> > 
> > > Everyone needs to be reminded of it 
> > 
> > That third point above leads to the next technique of flame/trolling. The 
> > troll should always pretend that he's already won the argument -- that 
> > either the troll or the target has already demonstrated that the target is 
> > a poetaster or pedophile or whatever. and the troll is just reminding 
> > everyone of that [pseudo-]fact. The target has the near-impossible task of 
> > showing that he isn't a poetaster or pedophile or whatever; and even if he 
> > succeeds in doing that it makes no difference anyway; the troll can simply 
> > move to another thread, as above. 
> > 
> > > especially you when you pontificate 
> > > about a subject that you know so little about. 
> > 
> > Third technique: Use the argument ad hominem, not just to insult the 
> > target, but also to establish the troll's putative authority. Here, for 
> > example, the troll is claiming a wide enough knowledge of the subject to 
> > allegedly know, and have 'demonstrated' that the target knows next to 
> > nothing about it. Of course the troll doesn't "'demonstrate" any knowledge 
> > of the subject by the troll or lack thereof by the talent; but who would 
> > want to debate the troll on that point? 
> > 
> > That ad hom also illustrates a fourth troll technique: Project. The troll 
> > should always accuse the target of doing what the troll is doing. 
> > Projection is pre-emption: now the target can't accuse the troll of doing 
> > the same things. Here, for example the target has been accused of 
> > 'pontificating', he can't turn around and accuse the troll of 
> > pontificating, even when the troll makes grand, sweeping (and completely 
> > unfounded) pronouncements like the above. 
> > 
> > > "ballad rhythm " "common meter" "witches meter" You're clearly 
> > > self-taught. There's really no shame in that, really. 
> > 
> > A fifth techique: Appeal to ignorance. If the troll doesn't know what a 
> > term means, for example, he can simply accuse the target of making it up; 
> > and everyone else who didn't know what it meant can relax and hate the 
> > target for playing such a nasty trick on them. (Perhaps the 
> > 'generic troll' is over-reaching by including a well-known term 
> > like "common meter," but it's amazing how many people who read and write 
> > contemporary poetry know nothing about meter). If the target does try to 
> > explain what these terms mean, or even worse cite references, the troll can 
> > simply accuse him of 'pontificating' again. 
> > 
> > > Except your haughty-snide asshole persona 
> > 
> > Sixth technique: play the victim. Among his other allegations, the troll 
> > should keep alleging that the victim's the one being mean, or haughty, or 
> > snide to him, and he's just doing it back. Once again, readers of the 
> > discussion have no way to judge the truth of that accusation. 
> > 
> > This statement also illustrates the fourth technique: notice how the troll 
> > tries to avert having his own assholeness commented on or even pointed 
> > out, by pre-emptively calling the target an asshole(!) 
> > 
> > > isn't appropriate, but >I realize 
> > > it's the only persona you have. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So continue your kook out, kook. 
> > 
> > Yet a third example of the fourth technique: the troll pre-empts any 
> > accusations of kooky behavior on his part by pretending that the target 
> > has been kooking out somewhere; and, once again, readers of the thread 
> > have no way to know if that's the case or not. 
> > 
> > So that's how flame/trolling works. Next question: why does it work? Well, 
> > if it were only one or two rather lazy trolls (as it is on aapc today), 
> > then it probably wouldn't. But imagine getting at least 15 or 20 messages 
> > a day, like the above, from 15-20 different accounts, in response to every 
> > message you posted to the group: How long before you would decide that 
> > posting to the group wasn't worth the aggravation, and stop posting or 
> > even leave? That's what it was like for targetted individuals on RAP back 
> > in the early 2000s. (Google "Vera" for one example). 
> > 
> > Fortunately, those days are long gone, and isolated flame/trolls like PJ 
> > and the 'generic troll' are pathetic anachronisms, so easily ignored or 
> > mocked. 
> > =============================================== 
> > 
> > G.D. nailed it....!!
> Good find, Zod. 
> 
> 😉

Indeed....!!