General Chat

Lady Scozz. Only went down first 5 pages. I have plenty of threads that have caused little or no interest, so I am pleased to add myself to that list with "troll tendencies" :-)

Think if someone can be bothered to review 20 pages rather than 5, there will be some more very surprising people with "troll tendencies". Some of the nicest and loveliest folk on here - like me, in fact ;-)

Can anyone tell me how many TROLLS are on threads ?


What Qualifications or Olligys do you have to have ?

I'm doing my bestest to work out how NOT to become one ...... :-0

If myself and about three others had not contributed to this thread, Jonesey would have appeared on this list of those with "troll tendencies". Now he is really is nice - with or without a facelift :-D

John, You flatter yourself, You have admitted in the past that you're guilty of being a wum :-S best not to put yourself in the same category as a Troll ;-)

Aspiring to better oneself are generally a good thing but not in this case :-0

Roy

GRMarilyn. By my reckoning there are 182 wums on Genes chat. By defintion of high views vs low response on threads, there are 55 with "troll tendencies".

But no actual trolls thanks to the spray that Roy keeps waving at us. I am pretty sure I have not seen anyone who begins to shape up to what Jonesey wrote in Opening Post. But many do bits of that.

I think a real troll has to have a pretty evil heart - and I have not see too much, if any, evidence of that. Coming in like Rambo with all guns blazing and looking for a scrap is not trolling, in my view. It is Boris Johnsoning and George Gallowaying and Jon Gaunting.;-)

My guess is you would know if any body would, :-D

FOUND THIS

I have no life, I have no clue,
so I must constantly correct and attack you.
I aim to hurt, I would love to scar, if I knew you personally, I'd stalk you with my car.
I love to poke, I love to prod, with my hard and
swift educational rod. Don't you know, don't you see I am superior to you, my spelling and punctuation proves it, hee hee!
I know big words like vitriol and pious, I bet you don't even know what they mean! I make fun of people living in Caldwell County, they're fat, nasty, simply grossly obscene.
I change my name often, probably hourly at best,
because if someone reports me, I'll have to stop my troll fest. I've been Mikey and Mickey and Nick and Melissa, I try to "F" up your lives and I don't even kiss ya. I Tryone'd and tater'd and triple H'd til blue, but I'm sure if I think about it, I can name myself anew.
Gotta love me, can't hate me, you might even like me somehow, except I might call you a mooing old cow...I just can't help it, I am driven to post.
You know you like topix, but you love me the most.
You know now my story, it's not all that droll,
Ima Troll is my name and this is how I roll!~
In honor of all the trolls who just love it here on Topix!
(all true names have been changed to protect the identity of all trolls worldwide)

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lenoir-nc/TBILHNTBC6BKULV4S

:-D :-D @ Dizzi. Brilliant post.

Lynda. Best advice :-)

John

You have only been using the boards for 11 months (so you keep telling us) this has been going on for much longer and not only on chat.

I look at most threads, but do not feel the urge to post on them all...chat is a board I very rarely posted on, until recently...as chatting is something I would rather do elsewhere

Nice one DIZZI ;-)

I am a little bit confused now. If the OP has a thread with large numbers of views but none or few postings, who is the Troll? The viewers or the OP. :-S :-S :-S :-S :-S :-S :-S

Sorry if that sounds a bit daft. :-D

11 months, Jax!!!! Yes, it seems much longer, though am sure it has flown past for most :-) ;-)

I was made aware early on about trouble on boards some years ago and any new posters getting compared to previous posters unless they enter like a lamb with all kisses and moowchios for everybody.

And I have noticed a poster recently came in like George Galloway. And was given very little space - or, dare I say it, RESPECT. Not all of it was what I wanted to read, but I just ignored what was winding me up and assumed it was not personal to me or anybody else.

not nice doing lists of names

Wonder how I knew the path this tread would take - if the cap fits wear it ;-)

Paula, Not daft at all, this theory about threads viewed and threads with replies is simply a smokescreen

I'm sure I am not alone when I say that I read all thread titles and if one looks interesting (to me) I will click on the thread and read the OP and then possibly a couple of posts but not always, If after reading the OP and or some of the posts I may then continue to read the remainder of posts, it is only at that point that I would consider adding to the thread but even then it would only be because I have something to say about the content or something to add to that thread topic.

If you have the time to check I would guess that most members do exactly as I do,

Trolls and wums will post on as many threads as possible regardless of topic or content and only post positive/constructive comment on others threads who the trolls and wums have identified as possible allies

Roy

I suppose they,re a bit like "Bad Pennies" when you think they,ve all been sent to be melted down at the Mint, One or two turn up again to spoil things. :-( :-(

Then we have the--------FLAMEBAITERS.

opposit to a troll,,,,,,

a Flamebaiter will post something well thought out, appearing innocently but with the aim to inflame others to gang and attack another with open spite or innuendueoes to which the flamebaiter has taken little part but has reached the desired target......thus encouraging innocent parties to fall foul of becoming a troll.

Flame baiters? I thought that was the name of people who constantly Barbecue. :-D

yes but sometimes the post is innocent Kay, in as much as it is prompted by thoughts following on from someone else's post. It is not meant as 'flamebaiting' so much as a genuine query as to why 'someone', or several 'someone's' have such a problem with something.

eg. I was just wondering why a few people seem to have a problem with those who can string a sentence together reasonably well, use reasonably good grammar and can spell? Is it 'intimidating' even when it's certainly not intended as such? I don't find it a problem when someone posts words I don't know or wraps up a point in a paragraph rather than paring it down to a sentence, I will google if I need to know what a word means ( and I often do) .

Would those who can't spell well or use 'big words' rather that those who do, 'dumbed down'? wouldn't that be a really offensive thing to do...assume that you have to use simple words so that everyone can understand them?

I understand that flamebaiting was just a method used by a troll in order to provoking angry response

Roy