Posted on 01/16/2009 12:36:53 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
You said — “I haven’t read your post, but I think I’ll take the admin moderator’s offer up and hit the abuse button & call you out as a troll, which is basically what I’ve been doing on that other thread. So I’ll hit the abuse button and see what kind of exchange is required to prove that you fit the definition of troll as stated on this thread.”
Ummm..., a troll when you didn’t read my post at ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2165967/posts?page=155#155
I would think that one should read it first before determining whether it was “trollish”... LOL...
I posted already that I’m not going to read your posts, so if they have something of substance, another freeper is going to have to direct my attention to it.
But I’ll be happy to read every word of your posts once again, if the admin mod needs that to establish a case that you’re a troll. The very first sentence of the definition talks about “specious arguments” and you’ve got that part down in spades.
I checked out the individual you mentioned above once she started in on the eligibility threads, and noted that she had posted almost exclusively on the Fair Tax threads for many pp of comments. I can’t grasp that stuff so I didn’t bother to read the comments, then someone else up the this thread mentioned about the Alinsky methods on the Fair Tax threads so I put two and two together.
Another thing I’ve noted is the attempts to get Polarik to reveal his real name, etc. One person - I think the lucy person - when I said that no one knew Buckhead’s real name - said that Buckhead’s findings weren’t that great anyway, or words to that effect.
If people don’t think that Polarik’s analysis has any value unless he reveals his legal name, then their freaking opinions have no value unless they reveal their names. I’ve invited one person who trolls those threads occasionally to pony up with his personal info, if opinions are worthless without it.
(Courtesy pink to Polarik.)
Interesting food for thought.
One thing that a seasoned forum like FR has going for it is that there are a lot of veterans here who can usually sniff out a troll fairly quickly. Some of the techniques described, however, do not necessarily lend themselves to sniffing out what we normally think of as “trolls” - - liberals trying to pretend they are normal, thinking humans.
No, the goal of professional trolls is not to influence opinion but simply to disrupt forums which they believe can influence political opinion.
I found “forum sliding” to be the most interesting technique, and I have often thought I sensed the technique in action. Freepers should try to remember to bump truly great threads throughout the course of the day in order to keep them in view. For example, sometimes in the morning I bump great threads from the previous evening - - “BUMP for the morning crew”.
Thanks, LJ, you are right about the trolls (and I could care less what they call me), but you might wish to check with Lucy herself about Buckhead as that was before my time on Free Republic, as I joined in mid-June as the Hannity forum I started on was way behind the curve on the birth certificate issue. BTW, I've CC:ed her with this reply.
Actually, could you be thinking of Lucysmom? (different FReeper)
I couldn’t remember which person opined that Buckhead’s reseraching debunking the forged letter wasn’t that great; it might have been her.
Heck, I was on that live thread and it was exciting; and Buckhead’s work on it was great. Even though he didn’t reveal his legal name.
Ignore them. The people who need to know, already know.
How many trolls are willing to reveal their real name, address, phone # and CV on Free Republic?
I wasn’t on the Buckhead threads. What years were the Buckhead research happening? Was I registered on FR during that time period?
It wasn’t LucyT - she’s not a troll!
It was either the other lucysmom or someone else.
I don’t remember when the Buckhead expose of the forgery was - I’ve been here since late 2002 but it was at least a couple of years after that.
And no one pooh-poohed Buckhead because he didn’t reveal his actual name. And there weren’t trolls spewing all over the place, either.
The keyword spam is still there:
KEYWORDS: 114birthers; 8balls; 911truthers; bho2008; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; conspiracytheories; eligibility; getalife; itsover; nutballs; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; robertscourt; scotus; screwballs; trollsonparade; whereisrush; Click to Add Keyword
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=1130#1130
The old timers call it "10,000 BS seeking missiles"
And they can be very accurate.
It must have been lucysmom.
The "Definitive Guide to FR" posted on a similar page -AND-
A forced search prior to posting for correct topic and similar headline/content - Digg does a really good job of this.
Oh heck yes! Excellent suggestions all. Does it do any good for me to second them? :-)
Ping
In particular I accuse Star Traveler to be an Issue Specific troll, in this case the issue is CoLB. The Orly Taitz interview thread would likely suffice to show her to be such a troll:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2162033/posts
That is, if FR is going to be using the definition cited in this thread as the operating definition. Does it not apply to specific issue trolling? Having a long term signup date is not evidence against trolling behavior on specific issues, such as FairTax. At least the definition above makes no mention of seniority or signup dates as a proof against trollhood.
Noting that Polarik doesn't use his real name does not equal an attempt to get him to reveal his real name.
Re Buckhead - I said like a stopped clock he turned out to be right, however his analysis was flawed. I stand by that statement.
If people don’t think that Polarik’s analysis has any value unless he reveals his legal name, then their freaking opinions have no value unless they reveal their names.
Just curious about the credentials of someone who makes a claim that runs counter to my experience.
BTW, isn't it accepted practice to ping the person you're talking about?
It appears that keyword trolldom is fine, statements by mods to the contrary. Maybe mods think this topic is kookery.
How Buckhead’s analysis flawed? That’s not how I remember it.
And what are you talking about when you say “counter to my experience”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.