From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 14:40:57 MDT
I know I am a sucker for flame-bait. I get pulled into stupid arguments
that I should ignore. However, I have been caught quite a few times in
the last few months by people who seem to deliberately be trolling the
list. They post some inflammatory rhetoric which triggers a long
debate. After much arguing and heat, they back down and agree that
their opponents are right. Then they claim that they never really
believed their original post.
They explain that their posting was a "thought experiment". Or they
wanted to see what the reaction would be. Or they didn't really know
one way or the other and just wanted to see how it would hash out. Or
they felt it would be a learning experience to the group to have us go
through and "prove it to ourselves."
Is this a useful debating technique? What do people here think? I tend
to find it dishonest. The post seems to deliberately misrepresent the
facts or misrepresent someone's position. I also find it rude. It
tricks people into responding and expending a lot of energy in research
and debate when they certainly would not have done so had they known the
truth.
I also find it suspect. In many of these cases, I can't help but wonder
if these people really did believe their original post. If they had
gotten support for their agenda, they might have moved forward. But
since they were soundly thrashed by the group, they disown their own
statements and switch sides in the debate. Oddly, these people seem to
keep pushing the same agendas over and over that they claim to have
disowned.
So how should we respond to such tactics? I am seriously getting to the
point of being afraid to respond to posts. I find myself wondering if
they are real or if they are traps. I also am finding myself reluctant
to put any work into posting or doing much research anymore. I get
tired of wasting my time crafting a response only to discover that I was
lured in by a joke and the response doesn't really matter.
I think such tactics are an abuse of the list. What do others think?
Am I just a crybaby because I have been fooled too many times? Or is
this really a problem?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:06 MST