[LINK] ATTN LINK LIST MODERATORS: RE: Recognising the Troll

[TKoltai]

Mr. Boxhall, I think I have held my tongue long enough.

Troll: Historically a distasteful looking cartoon character suffering 
from abnormal oozing pustular growths, gigantism, and dirty 
fingernails. Usually green. Internet Troll: Someone attempting to 
obtain deceitful benefit from skewing popular opinion.

The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (the Criminal Code) Part 10.6 can be 
used to prosecute individuals who are "trolls".

You are now accusing persons in this list, myself included of criminal 
activity.

According to Findlaw 
[http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4259/internet-trolls-can-be-prosecut
ed-under-australian.aspx]

Quote/
Internet trolls aren't loveable creatures with crazy bright coloured 
hair but rather are individuals who engage in online behaviour that is 
provocative and offensive, with the ultimate goal of garnering some 
sort of online attention. Arguably, the most common example of trolling 
behaviour is posting offensive comments in response to a post or 
article. Quote/

That seems to me to be the antics of yourself and your buddy, Frankie 
and could certainly not be even at a stretch applied to either my or 
BRD comments.

I suggest that you might like to read a paper on Cyber Bullying in
Australia and [its] 
legal implications:  
https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/index.php/elawmurdoch/article/view/24/8


TomK



> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> On Behalf Of David Boxall
> Sent: Friday, 2 March 2012 11:38 AM
> To: Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: [LINK] Recognising the Troll
> 
> 
> This has been in draft for some time and I'm now far from 
> certain about 
> the character in question. Anyway, another lesson from the Linkstorm:
> 
> The Troll is an Internet phenomenon. Though the psychopathy 
> may exist in 
> the real world, it's unleashed online.
> 
> First, for comparison, one who seems to be not a Troll but a 
> True Believer.
> 
> BRD misrepresented the climate models, attempted to establish 
> speculation on the significance of new data as evidence of their 
> inadequacy and implied that lack of absolute certainty is reason for 
> inaction. He did so, despite being previously put straight on 
> the nature 
> of the models (by me). When challenged, he resiled, saying 
> that he had 
> been "too casual" in his language.
> 
> On Link, Bernard has a long history of denial. Over time, it seems he 
> has learned not to be too straightforward on this subject. It can 
> therefore be difficult to determine exactly what he's trying to say.
> 
> Could BRD's descent into mendacity be attributable to 
> dissonance arising 
> from subconscious realisation of the improbability of that which he 
> feels a need to believe? His inability to present convincing, factual 
> arguments certainly calls into question the foundations of 
> that belief.
> 
> TomK, on the other hand, started out sounding like a classic 
> denier. The 
> lunatic theory of a grand conspiracy involving the vast 
> majority of our 
> best qualified climate scientists is classic, mundane 
> denialist fare, as 
> are his cherry-picking and amateurish misinterpretation of data.
> 
> What set Tom apart, and led me to consider him a Troll, was the sheer 
> volume of posts and their length. It's equivalent to shouting 
> down and 
> talking over your opponents. The impact is to reduce the 
> usefulness of 
> the list, which is the aim of a Troll.
> 
> The lack of subsequent posts calls into question my conclusion. The 
> lesson remains, however.
> 
> The lesson? It can be difficult to tell Troll from fool. In impact, 
> there may be no substantial difference.
> 
> -- 
> David Boxall                    |  All that is required
>                                 |  for evil to prevail is
>        |  for good men to do nothing.
>                                 |     -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)