[LINK] On the troll [was: SAP slams open source 'socialism']

[David Boxall]

I see the troll is back, befouling the list again.

> we can't begin to have a sensible conversation on the subject.

Sensible conversation is not his aim.  The troll gets his thrills from
disruption and discord.  He doesn't believe the extremist nonsense he
writes: I reckon no sane person could.  His purpose is not to argue a 
case or engage in civilised discourse.  He writes the things he does, 
purely to get a reaction.  Try answering him off list: you won't get a 
response.  The reaction he wants is public spectacle.

I liken it to those disturbed monkeys in the zoo, that compulsively 
masturbate and flash their red backsides at the crowd.  By responding on 
list you meet his needs, but neither you nor Link has any prospect of 
gaining from it.  Analysing his behaviour, as recorded over many years 
on this list and elsewhere, I've come to the conclusion that the troll 
has nothing to say that's worth the listening.

Judging by the public record, our troll has decades of experience in
sophistry but, in general, he's abysmally ignorant.  When he traps
himself up a dialectic blind alley, the troll pretends to live in a
fantasy world: one in which he has insights that nobody else
understands.  If the troll ever had anything worthwhile to say, the 
history suggests that he's long since forgotten how to say it.

Goolgling on the word 'troll' now brings up quite a lot of information. 
  Among my favourites:
<http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll>
<http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm> and
<http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm>


-- 
David Boxall                    |  The more that wise people learn
david.boxall at hunterlink.net.au  |  The more they come to appreciate
                                 |  How much they don't know.
                                                        --Confucius

At 18/11/2005 3:21 PM David Lochrin wrote:
>    Vic, you haven't answered the question.  I asked what you thought
> were the reasons open-source had become so successful.  If you don't
> understand and acknowledge that, we can't begin to have a sensible
> conversation on the subject.
> 
> David
>