Re: [OT] We have a troll
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:17:14 -0800
Message-ID: <3s8202lgbifivs3dgjsurj219214jqachv_at_4ax.com>
"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>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
> terms of discourse is why you confuse disabusing with 'flaming'.
> .... *plonk* "
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/38bae4f28195610c
A difference in whether to look to standards or proprietary features of that era, and how to set a default font size in styles for web pages. Just read the threads. He is the one who chose to characterize it like that. He really went off. But there are other threads where he freely called others, trolls, as well. There are just some on Usenet who do that.
>>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
But this had to do with a web page I had, some time back, which used a background and particular text. And this person was dead-set that a particular font should have otherwise been used, and no background. Others came along to disagree with him. And I took certain constructive advice and rewrote some paragraphs which even I thought needed to be rewritten. But that didn't stop him, as well, from just going off, eventually. Some people do that. I had agreed with some of his criticism, but not with all of it. And he became increasingly hostile.
>>From alt.talk.creationism, 2004:
> "Finally, Mark has ignored every single thread that I have initiated
>in
> which I seek to get his understanding of these things. He does this
> because those are shorter threads (starting, of course, with a single
> message) and it's not as easy to get lost within them--it's not as
> easy to selectively remove context from the messages to which he
> responds without getting caught because the shortness of the message
> makes the previous message easier to find.
>
> "In the end, I find Mark Johnson to be dishonest and juvenile; but
>hope
> springs eternal.
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/c1259aceace1b352
Again, a matter of debate which was unfairly, and yes dishonestly, characterized as being dishonest.
>>From comp.databases.ms-access, 2003:
>
> "I think the platform you are seizing here in cdma, is the platform
>of
> arguing for the argument's sake, and of talking to yourself in long,
> untrimmed posts that lead nowhere. That's quite a hopeless position,
>and I
> don't understand why you're so eager to get that position. For the
>rest of
> us who will have to spend time skimming throught the crap, the bland
> statements, the confused thoughts and the desinformation, it is not
> constructive.
>
> "Many people here have 'dealt with it', as you call it, from polite
>hints to
> being frank and rude, but you won't listen. I see no hope for a
>change to
> the better, so"
>
> "- plonk - "
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/b7565c5b36d166b5
This was again an unfair characterization of my complaints against Micro$oft at that time, even including using the dollar sign in the name. There was a representative of Micro$oft posting to the ng. The least criticism of the firm was deemed by some as horribly offensive. That was the subject, here, and again you see the man's zealotry for fear, perhaps, that Kaplan would be offended and stop posting.
>>From alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, 2004:
>
> "A normal Mark Johnson dialog goes like this.
>
> <Tony> Mark, what is 2+2
>
> <Mark> Cucumber
>
> <Tony> But that makes no sense, Mark.
>
> <Mark> It would if you read what I wrote as I wrote it.
>
> <Tony> But Mark, I asked what 2+2 was. You answered Cucumber. A
> vegetable has nothing to do with an arithmetic question.
>
> <Mark> "The mass as we knew it is dead. I didn't say that, one of
>your
> 'reformers' said that!
>
> <Tony> Mark, what does the mass have to do with 2+2? Don't you know
>how
> to answer a simple question.
>
> <Mark> Don't project you 'Catholic' you.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/msg/31432c01cb38fd21
This is a religious difference between those who believe as I do and those who defend unauthorized and ill-considered changes to catechism and practice in this religion. It's a religious argument. The quote which so infuriated this troll, because this was in fact someone who consistently dogged myself and others with literally hundreds of messages in a week's period or so, just butting in anywhere they could, was a quote from someone on that side, but who simply couldn't keep silent, or who rather seemed to boast of this. So, perhaps like mAsterdam recently on this ng, he (or she, it was never really established) took to rewriting everything I wrote, taking most everything out of context, and then claiming that represented my writing. But this poster practically spammed that ng. There were just too many of these nonsense messages for me to reply to all.
>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.
The point is, it's the same troll who produced the nonsense above, and in literally hundreds of messages. If you give the task of relating the history of the Holocaust to someone who is clinically insane, and believes in never happened what's more, then you could not fairly criticize anyone based on such a report. If you did, that is, it simply would be foolish, and unfair. Furthermore, the complaints, as some pointed out on that religious ng, in my defense as if it were needed, read like orthodoxy in that religion. The person who put up that page was and may still be so far gone that they imagine recording the basics of the faith as somehow self-evidently a denial or attack on that faith.
>There are actually those who claim that he operates under a variety
>of pseudonyms as well
The reason I have kept this email, even though it's long dead, was to establish simply the one identity on Usenet. Rather, this troll you used as some 'witness' against me, was known to adopt a host of different aliases, depending on whether they had been forced off their latest host or news server. I recall it seemed like 20, 30 different aliases, at one point, but all clearly the same person.
>Does he really mean to advance creationism against the theory of
>evolution?
That's not a discussion that belongs here. But if you confess evolutionism, then you must also confess a host of problems with the one or more theories typically proposed. It's matter for debate, whether or not some 'creationism' is the alternative.
>Does he really believe in his doctrine of proper order
>as being able to overturn set theory?
I never said any such thing.
>He thrives on long threads. Observe how, in this message, he
>revives a thread that has had no activity in over a year:
>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
I didn't realize it was that old. You just called my attention to that, now.
>issue to "asking" a wedge question about the difference between
>tables and a relations.
And you object to that?
>Notice how he fails to answer direct questions, even simple ones.
I could say the same for you. There are host of questions you didn't answer. I didn't insist you answer them. I did try to steer things around to what I thought were more productive questions. But I didn't fume because you failed to answer. And if I thought something is a question of yours missed the point, or didn't require an answer, then so be it.
>Notice how he intentionally misunderstands the honest followup
>question.
Again, that might be my complaint with you, and particularly in the way you attempted to take utterly out of context you examples above, in order to paint me in an unfair light.
>Projection is the rhetorical weapon he is most skilled at, so it is
>a powerful tactic to preemptively accuse others of projection before
>they catch on. Here are over a hundred messages he's authored in which
>the word "projection" appears. Notice how deftly criticisms of him are
>turned back on the critic.
>It is clear how he has become so good at projection, and so good at
>deflecting criticism.
If you think that's one sense, there's another. Projection is simply attributing to others that which you are guilty of, yourself.
I see a lot of that in this message of yours.
>Some of you are still unsure whether he is a troll or not.
Given your pointless efforts in all this - wouldn't it be fair to simply say, that you are projecting, and that you are behaving as a troll?
>Listen. And understand. That troll is out there.
We just don't agree on who it is. Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 05:17:14 CET