[OT] We have a troll
Date: 25 Feb 2006 16:47:19 -0800
Message-ID: <1140914839.469604.254000_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Esteemed fellow c.d.t. members,
We have a troll.
[Background reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll ]
Last night I had nothing better to do and so spent some time searching
for past activity from our newest member. The raw numbers are
staggering:
this is someone who posts hundreds of messages a month, totaling tens
of
thousands of posts on hundreds of newsgroups going back a decade. He
has averaged over five posts a day for the last ten years. He most
often appears in areas of maximum controversy: abortion, homosexuality,
creationism. Whatever his motivation, it is clear that his full time
occupation is trying to get a rise out of people on usenet. And as near
as I can tell, he is justly and uniformly despised wherever he goes.
You can see his posting history here:
This particular search is also instructive.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mark+johnson+troll
Let's not judge just on the basis of the 120+ messages he's posted in the last three weeks on c.d.t. Let's see what other people have said about him in other diverse newsgroups over the course of years:
>From comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, 1997:
"You labor under the delusion that you are entitled to be taken
seriously while you parade your ignorance. This is a technical forum,
where published references and objective verification are the basis
for any rational discussion. Your manifest inability to deal with
such
terms of discourse is why you confuse disabusing with 'flaming'.
.... *plonk* "
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/38bae4f28195610c
>From rec.photo.digital, 2004:
"I'm not sure any longer that Mark Johnson is a 'troll' in the usual
sense. I don't believe he can controll himself. His absolute
inability to
accept constructive criticism and monomaniacal need to 'agree to
disagree'
are traits I see from time to time in my practice."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/942b8ef2ed4a3d4d
>From alt.talk.creationism, 2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/c1259aceace1b352
>From comp.databases.ms-access, 2003:
"- plonk - "
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/b7565c5b36d166b5
>From alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, 2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/msg/31432c01cb38fd21
And try to imagine the frame of mind someone must have been driven to
to produce this:
http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/
Yes, it's the same person. These are all about the same person.
There are actually those who claim that he operates under a variety
of pseudonyms as well, but I did not try to establish that one way
Crowds of people before us have exhorted him to behave better, to respond to direct questions, to fix his punctuation and his writing style, not to clip others' posts to distort the meaning, etc. If he's been hearing the same message from others for a decade, it is unreasonable to believe anything we say or do will change his behavior.
What is his motivation? Does he really believe what he is saying? Does he really mean to advance creationism against the theory of evolution? Does he really believe in his doctrine of proper order as being able to overturn set theory? None of that matters.
So we have thousands of examples of his standard operating procedure. He enters a newsgroup. He advocates positions that are subtly flawed, or simply designed to agitate the locals. As he begins to receive complaints, he switches from discussing the original issue to rehashing what's already been said, sometimes misattributing positions. The occasional entirely innocent post is included, just to further render his exact nature unclear. Then, after working hard to wind people up, he criticizes them for getting wound up. He turns technical discussions into arguments to be won or lost, then criticizes others for arguing. At every turn, any difficulty the conversation has is subtly and skillfully blamed on others.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/8b588b6306267516
Why did he revive this thread? He clearly has no interest in discussing the actual thread topic, but he does now have an opportunity to quote old material. Notice how he shifts imperceptibly from the original issue to "asking" a wedge question about the difference between tables and a relations.
Notice how he fails to answer direct questions, even simple ones.
Notice how he intentionally misunderstands the honest followup
question.
Notice how he never addresses counterarguments, opting instead
to repeat vague questions, or encourage others to stop projecting
their own issues on to him.
Some of you are still unsure whether he is a troll or not.
Listen. And understand. That troll is out there. It can't be
bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity,
or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until
constructive conversation is dead.
Marshall Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 01:47:19 CET