In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > >>
> > > >> >> > Your use of the word ****wit
> > > >> >> > shows you to be a mere troll.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> And the use of the insult "troll" shows you to be...?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > An accusation of trollness, when demonstrated
> > > >> > by the troll's insulting can be called a troll by
> > > >> > anyone.
> > > >>
> > > >> Calling people names does not equal being a troll, if it did, calling
> me
> > > >> a
> > > >> troll makes you one.
> > > >
> > > > Considering Dutch has called me a troll....
> > >
> > > Correct, and as I just said, "Calling people names does not equal being
> a
> > > troll.."
> > >
> > > It's just a word, but it has had a specific meaning on usenet for years,
> and
> > > I find it annoying to see that the meaning of it is being lost to
> newbies
> > > who think it means the boogie-man. It's a losing battle though, the next
> > > Wikipedia will no doubt reflect the new usage.
> >
> > The "in" crowd.
>
> The dumbing down of the language.
>
> > Wikipedia. Really?
>
> Yes, the online encyclopedia.

Once again, your sources are questionable. Who is it again that reviews
editable entries from the general public into this encyclopedia to
ensure academic accuracy and some type of standard?