From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 02:25:26 MDT
louisnews@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>
>>>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 say it is NOT useful. It causes us to waste time arguing points that
>no one really cares about. (Or re-hashing something because someone
>pretended they didn't understand.) It merely wastes our time.
>
Oooh, serious; how can you know if someone is _pretending_ or if they
really don't understand? This is something I'm accused of all the time
because I really do have a somewhat 'autistic' time with human emotions.
I have to ask questions like a three-year-old. My close friends say if
they pretend I'm an AI it's not offensive, but otherwise I come over as
taking the piss all the time, even after explaining the problem.
>
>I think any person who consistantly admits posting LIES ("I didn't really
>believe that when I posted it...) should be suspended. That is the
>DEFINITION of trolling.
>
Yeh, I guess it's the not being honest thing that bugs me too. So is
someone who admits it better than someone who does it and _doesn't_ own
up? Because that's what will happen if owning up gets you suspended...
It would be better to have a 'safety protocols off' zone where people
were warned that this sort of thing might occur at any moment...join
this list at your own risk, sort of thing...now _that_ sounds like more
fun....?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:09 MST