I strongly suspect that people who are not regular users of forums such as this don't understand what "trolling" actually is.

This is reinforced by a few high profile incidents in the last year where the meeja have deemed certain people "trolls" when in fact they were not trolling, but being either abusive, bullying, or deliberately offensive. Which is not to say trolling can't also be any of those things, as well as trolling.

It becomes rapidly clear that some people who are not seasoned internet users have picked up on the word and hijacked it to their own meanings. So you get items on main news broadcasts, where as an aside they define "troll" for those who don't understand the term, but are clearly not using the term correctly.

To have a proper debate about communications in electronic media surely we should start with a position where there is a definition of what it is we are supposed to be discussing?

So every one must have the same view on every subject? To comment when you see how misguided and indoctrinated many people are is not trolling.

Dally's not a troll. He has controversial views and most of them are out of the Daily Mail but so what? I've never seen Dally be rude or personally insulting to other posters on here but you see that from other posters. Also lots of other posters gang up on Dally and he deals with it without becoming bad tempered.

"abusive, bullying, or deliberately offensive"


Has no-one ever seen examples of that on here? Really?

Change the word "contraversial" to the words "views that are different to my". Because that's all it is.

I find it fascinating that the bloke who is labelled Right Wing is far more placid and less aggressive than those who perhaps hold views from people who would be labelled Left Wing. Blows the labelling stereotypes out of the water does that.

Yes the problem on here is some of the better educated posters pick on people that can't defend themselves and make a sport out of making them look stupid. You're never going to win someone over to your argument if you make them feel like they are humiliated. A lot of the time people with misguided views have just not been in possession of all the facts so its better to show them your argument and let them learn rather than make them feel like you've got one up on them for proving them wrong.

sally cinnamon wrote:Yes the problem on here is some of the better educated posters pick on people that can't defend themselves and make a sport out of making them look stupid. You're never going to win someone over to your argument if you make them feel like they are humiliated. A lot of the time people with misguided views have just not been in possession of all the facts so its better to show them your argument and let them learn rather than make them feel like you've got one up on them for proving them wrong. Yes, I've witnessed people automatically take an ascended POV on things and simply rubbish someone. Shame really as it gets in the way of a decent debate. Though I personally, don't buy into your term "better educated". There is one expression I once heard in psychology. There is a difference between being confident and being arrogant. Arrogant people feel the need to belittle, ridicule and minimise others in a bid to hide their own insecurities. Think about that when you read the way people post. Just do a quick search for "difference between arrogance and confidence" http://www.communicationconfidence.com/ ... gance.html

sally cinnamon wrote:Yes the problem on here is some of the better educated posters pick on people that can't defend themselves and make a sport out of making them look stupid. You're never going to win someone over to your argument if you make them feel like they are humiliated. A lot of the time people with misguided views have just not been in possession of all the facts so its better to show them your argument and let them learn rather than make them feel like you've got one up on them for proving them wrong. Yes, I've witnessed people automatically take an ascended POV on things and simply rubbish someone. Shame really as it gets in the way of a decent debate. Though I personally, don't buy into your term "better educated". There is one expression I once heard in psychology. There is a difference between being confident and being arrogant. Arrogant people feel the need to belittle, ridicule and minimise others in a bid to hide their own insecurities. Think about that when you read the way people post. Just do a quick search for "difference between arrogance and confidence" http://www.communicationconfidence.com/ ... gance.html

What a bewildering question. Are you suggesting someone claimed no-one had ever seen examples of these?

Bugger, I'm failing in my mission then.

Nope.