Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
with recipes.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?

Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
head hurt to think of someone that stupid.

Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.

How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs
of the trolls?

What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
posting an on-topic recipe.

I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe. And the knife guy,
and everybody else who feeds the troll and then says, "Oh, I know I
should resist."

Lead, don't follow.
Jack Curry
-for those who know, "I am Infantry"-

In article , Kevin S.
Wilson wrote:

I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe.

Me? I'm gonna call my congressman about it that's what I'm gonna do....

monroe(and the White House)

In article ,
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
with recipes.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?

Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
head hurt to think of someone that stupid.

I'm with Kevin on this. The main point of trolling is to get
responses -- not reading them would be pretty much exactly like
masturbation without the happy ending.

Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.

How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs of
the trolls?

What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
posting an on-topic recipe.

And I'm with him on this, too. The technique works very well on
other newsgroups -- lurk a bit on alt.folklore.urban if you don't
believe me.

The worst thing to do is to respond to the troll with outrage.
Think of a toddler throwing a tantrum -- if you pay attention
to him, give him candy or some other treat to pacify him,
you're playing his game, and the tantrum behavior is just
reinforced. If you ignore him, on the other hand, he's more
likely just to run out of steam and go to sleep.

However, some of the AFB community seems not to have gotten
the hang of this Usenet thing yet -- and ignoring the troll
does no good if others won't. So the next best thing is to
respond with a non sequitur; it's like ignoring the troll
AND making it obvious to him that you're doing so. This also
has the benefit of reminding the outraged responders that
they're just feeding the troll.

The technique works best when more than one person uses it,
though. I'd encourage others to follow Kevin's lead -- think
of all the recipes that'll be exchanged, if nothing else.

--
Mark Shaw contact info at homepage -- http://www.panix.com/~mshaw
================================================== ======================
"Grown men are not comfortable explaining why they want to use the sniper
rifle on fictional dogs with speech impediments." -James Lileks

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:00:31 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:40:47 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:31:44 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

I do like the idea of Flame-Bait Boy spending time reading followups
that consist only of recipes. However, if I begin to see that the
flame-bait is being unanimously ignored, then I'll stop following up
with recipes.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he reads responses?

Because it's too difficult to imagine anybody being brain-dead enough
to simply post flame-bait and never assess the effectiveness of the
bait or gauge the amount and type of response it receives. Makes my
head hurt to think of someone that stupid.

We often make the mistake of thinkng that *WE* set the bar for others.
Bad mistake.

Or how about this compromise? Every time Flame-Bait Boy posts his
flame-bait, I'll change the subject line and post a new recipe,
leaving his original post to languish without follow-ups.

How about just posting the recipe, and ignoring the attention needs of
the trolls?

What difference does it make? I'm not contributing to the noise. I'm
posting an on-topic recipe.

There are many who will killfile the thread; they will not see your
recipes.

I'll be happy to ignore the posts . . . until I see someone who knows
better feeding the trolls. That means you, Monroe. And the knife guy,
and everybody else who feeds the troll and then says, "Oh, I know I
should resist."


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Mark Shaw wrote:

And I'm with him on this, too. The technique works very well on
other newsgroups -- lurk a bit on alt.folklore.urban if you don't
believe me.

Well, AFU folks are . . . different. I learned a lot more about cabbits
and BOAs than I expected.

The worst thing to do is to respond to the troll with outrage.

Absolutely.

However, some of the AFB community seems not to have gotten
the hang of this Usenet thing yet -- and ignoring the troll
does no good if others won't.

That's certainly true.

So the next best thing is to
respond with a non sequitur; it's like ignoring the troll
AND making it obvious to him that you're doing so. This also
has the benefit of reminding the outraged responders that
they're just feeding the troll.

It has the determiment that newbies reading it may interpret that as any
non-sequitur is a good response, such as the anti-vegetarian jokes and
stories, and the inflammatory reference to abortion that have shown up
recently.

I think it's better to encourage no response at all, with only gentle
admonitions about not responding to trolls for the new people who are
sucked in. Let the oh-so-clever trolls disappear with nary a ripple.

I had been posting what I was doing in response to troll posts: "block
this poster", "filter this keyword", kill this thread. Steve W. didn't
seem to like that, although the only way could see that was because I
was googling for another post of mine, if I've killed a thread, how am I
going to see a followup?

The technique works best when more than one person uses it,
though. I'd encourage others to follow Kevin's lead -- think
of all the recipes that'll be exchanged, if nothing else.

Yes and no. As I said, I usually immediately kill the thread. The
exceptions are ones like this, where there are already followups or
meta-discussion underway. So I and others that do the same won't see
these.


Brian Rodenborn

"www.factoryfarming.com" wrote in
message om...
The Environmental Side to Vegetarianism

by Erica Franklin


I wrote a paper in grade nine on the treatment of animals in livestock
production. The day that I started my research was the day that I cut
all meat out of my diet. My primary inspiration for this was an
ethical one. I did not want to support an industry that treated
animals only as commodities and harboured them in an environment that
would allow them to produce the most eggs, milk or animal flesh in the
shortest amount of time possible. In order to do this, the ethical
treatment of livestock is overlooked.


**** the animals, they're food. Just groceries. That's their goal
in life, to end up on my plate.



I could delve much further into the issue of how farm animals are
treated, but I am not here to talk about animal rights. I am here to
point out the environmental repercussions associated with the
livestock industry, of which there are many. The following reasons
were the push that made me opt for a vegan diet (no meat, dairy or
eggs).


Well isn't that cute. I guess that just leaves more for the rest of
us folks that can actually kill and gut an animal before consuming it.


The primary cause of climate change (also known as global warming)

Once again I spank you idiots for talking about global warming when
most of the USA is in a hard freeze. Think August, you parsnip headed,
sissy dress wearing lunatics!


If living lightly upon the planet is a principle that you go by, an
animal-free diet should be a part of it.


Who said we wanted to live lightly? We own this ****ing planet and
we'll do with it as we wish. If that includes consuming you in the process,
so be it.

TFM®

"TFM®" wrote in message
. com...

"www.factoryfarming.com" wrote in
message om...
The Environmental Side to Vegetarianism

by Erica Franklin


I wrote a paper in grade nine on the treatment of animals in livestock
production. The day that I started my research was the day that I cut
all meat out of my diet. My primary inspiration for this was an
ethical one. I did not want to support an industry that treated
animals only as commodities and harboured them in an environment that
would allow them to produce the most eggs, milk or animal flesh in the
shortest amount of time possible. In order to do this, the ethical
treatment of livestock is overlooked.


**** the animals, they're food. Just groceries. That's their
goal
in life, to end up on my plate.



I could delve much further into the issue of how farm animals are
treated, but I am not here to talk about animal rights. I am here to
point out the environmental repercussions associated with the
livestock industry, of which there are many. The following reasons
were the push that made me opt for a vegan diet (no meat, dairy or
eggs).


Well isn't that cute. I guess that just leaves more for the rest
of
us folks that can actually kill and gut an animal before consuming it.


The primary cause of climate change (also known as global warming)

Once again I spank you idiots for talking about global warming
when
most of the USA is in a hard freeze. Think August, you parsnip headed,
sissy dress wearing lunatics!


If living lightly upon the planet is a principle that you go by, an
animal-free diet should be a part of it.


Who said we wanted to live lightly? We own this ****ing planet
and
we'll do with it as we wish. If that includes consuming you in the
process,
so be it.

TFM®


TFM,
AMEN!!!