What do you figure the odds are that King would have taken or returned Glenn's call?

When a disgusting plate of food comes to you in a restaurant, do you call to ask the chef why it tastes so bad and whether he has done better in the past or do you just send it back and demand another (or walk out like me since I know someone is going to spit in the food)?

Glenn is a critic, critics judge the product as produced, not as the person producing wished it had been produced.

If John King were a chef and Glenn had been a food critic who returned the plate, do you think King could have kept himself from spitting in the food?

That latter figure comes from poisoning the environment. But hell, since you don't believe the environment can become unsupporting or poisonous up until the day you die with your skin peeling off or can't find any food, why should a little thing like radiation physics get in the way of real knowledge, which comes by mental masturbation, not scientific research?

You are letting me get to you to the point where your reading comprehension skills are just about nil.

I said nothing like what you above claim I said. In fact, if I were like Kitt, I would accuse you of lying about me.

The story of Rapa Nui should be a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks the environment is always going to support us no matter what we do.

Eventually the inhabitants of Rapa Nui were reduced to cannibalism.

Personally I think global warming is well beyond the point where it can be stopped and I fear that global environmental collapse is distinct possibility within the lifetimes of my grandchildren.

I gotta agree, persuading an opponent of the correctness of your views is an extremely rare occurrence.

The best thing to do is just pound them into the ground like a tent peg.

The lurkers, on the other hand.

My school produces some pretty bright students who they have gone on to respectable careers.

I would think that a professor of journalism writing a chiding note would make sure that it is grammatically correct before posting.

The error in logic you committed and are committing now is that of ad hominem.

Who Glenn Greenwald is and what he does has no bearing whatsoever on the correctness or lack of such of what he writes. In attacking Glenn's credentials you are attempting to divert the discussion from the substance of his post and turn it on the man.

You do make a good point about anonymous postings though, I find them distasteful and cowardly myself.

I do have a question or two for you professor Smith:

What would you have had Glenn do differently?

Do you honestly think that John King would have taken or returned Glenn's phone call?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.

As a long time troll I can assure you that many trolls try hard to maintain the high standards of our calling. ;-)

We are basically the online equivalent of prank callers, but true trolldom is an art form..

You don't lead with your best punch, you play rope a dope, float like a butterfly before you sting like a bee.

It's remarkably easy to get people to react emotionally online, just mount a credible attack on some belief which they hold dear but have not critically examined and you can get damn near anyone to a frothing rage. As Glenn pointed out, using their own words against them is particularly effective and my own contribution is to say that maintaining one's cool while the other melts down is also quite useful. People throwing poo *really* hate it when you don't respond in kind.

I took umbrage at Greenwalds equally self-congratulatory style, showing how cute and flippant he could be with his cute and flippant turns of phrase.

Some examples of "cute and flippant" turns of phrase would be nice.

This is a tactic perfectly characteristic of right-wing lurkers and trolls, including propagandists contracted by AEI and similar outfits. The Scaife's have a lot of money and are known to fund this kind of activity, and so do other wealthy right-wingers.

Given that we trolls only succeed in making ourselves look stupid why on earth would someone pay us to do that?

Oh, and as long as I'm trolling anyway I would like to get paid for it.

Where do I apply?

It sounds kind of mean. Have you ever fallen for it?

I probably did early on but I've honestly forgotten.

But I cut my teeth on usenet which makes Salon look like Sesame Street.

It helps if you have critically examined your own beliefs, it's much harder to bait someone when they know the basis for what they think.

The best targets for trolling are those who have closely held but basically irrational beliefs. Drug warriors and fundies are my favorite targets.

If you can find them, right wing talk show hosts are a troll's wet dream. Closely held irrational beliefs combined with a huge ego make for very entertaining trolling. I've only had that good fortune twice though.

I'm nowhere near pedal to the metal, in fact I'm trying to play nice. ;-)

And walter map, fighting against the dark side just ain't payin' the bills, of which I have a legion.

I disagree that every attack makes Glenn's credibility less, in fact I think a successfully parried attack makes one's credibility stronger.

That's why O'Loofah's credibility is zilch, he couldn't parry an attack to save his scrofulous hide. Shut up, cut his mike! is about his speed when challenged.

I hadn't thought of it that way but you're probably right.

Good point.