Letters to the Editor
-
Yes, A Troll
LBS:
A troll? A small quibble.
Paul, I respect and admire you. Let me say that straight off, for I get a lot from your posts. (You give a lot.)
I do have a small quibble: I followed Hankrest's (I may have the name slightly off) line a bit yesterday. I actually thought his original point was a good one, if a bit trivial, and, given the fact that this column is in large part dedicated to accuracy in language, the dialog was somewhat instructive.
We've asked repeatedly for a better quality of troll, and this is what one looks like. It starts off looking like a concerned citizen.
My question: Was Hankrest the problem or was the problem our response to Hankrest?
I'll admit, his tone seemed rather hostile at first, however, he seemed to grow more circumspect later.
Yes, when challenged. Like I said, a better quality of troll. But he weasles out of answering questions that would reguire him to admit outright that what he was up to was bogus.
I have not read over the entire line, so I offer the questions as real questions, not as assumptions.
However, I think it's important that we are careful when we use the word 'troll.' This forum could lose credibility if writers did not feel free to question.
Agreed. I watched a bit before offering my first judgment. But I've seen the pattern for years before. And everything that's followed has been according to script.
My own take is that trolls are those who keep showing up to provoke and provoke, and generally succeed in doing so. That they succeed maybe something for us to consider . . .
Ounce of prevention. Pound of cure.
Did I mention I tried to cure psychopaths when I just a young un? Well, not quite. But almost...
Point being, I know well the yogic pose of bending over backwards.
Been there. Done that.