Internet Board Troll, defined

[Narrock]

Since a few of you RETARDS throw the term around loosely, clearly exemplifying a lack of understanding of the term, I've taken the liberty to educate you (hopefully once and for all) and put an end to your ignorance.

Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".
The "trollface" sometimes used to indicate trolling.[1]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted". While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."

Now you (should) know that I'm not a "troll" (unless you have a sub-average intellect.) When I post here, I post what I'm thinking, or about something I just read about, heard about, stuff that pisses me off or negatively affects me or my family/friends/country, etc., saw on the news, saw on the big screen or other form of media, witnessed, or experienced, etc. Some of it may or may not be offensive. I even post about stuff that is positive and/or makes me happy. If what I post is offensive to you... get over it. Everybody says stuff that someone else isn't going to like, but that doesn't make them a "board troll." What I do see here on the NT is quite a few people finger-poking and being judgmental and hypocritical. A lot of my posts are in response to THAT behavior. Take a critical look at yourself before posting a rage post or judgmental post about someone else. Nobody here is "better" than anyone else, although many of you are narcissistic and egotistical, and have a superiority complex. Get over yourself already.

[10sun]

I may not be better than you, but I am certainly above your antics on this message board.

Thanks for your concern.

[Narrock]

I may not be better than you, but I am certainly above your antics on this message board.

Thanks for your concern.

[Tikker]

I"m pretty sure that your last paragraph was the exact definition of trolling

[Menelvir]

A genuine, altruistic desire to enlighten and educate others - and expressed in such an elegant and non-combative fashion.

Given that other's faults are being so clearly pointed out to them, I don't see how they could fail to heed the message and begin a vigorous examination of their own motives, which would of course lead to a complete revision of their behavior.

[Narrock]

A genuine, altruistic desire to enlighten and educate others - and expressed in such an elegant and non-combative fashion.

Given that other's faults are being so clearly pointed out to them, I don't see how they could fail to heed the message and begin a vigorous examination of their own motives, which would of course lead to a complete revision of their behavior.

And my thoughts/posts aren't being scrutinized constantly? 90+% of you subscribe to a more liberal mindset. Any deviation from that is immediately attacked and labeled as: stupid, extreme, ignorant, blah blah blah... I will hand it to Arlos though... he tends to go on the attack in a tasteful and respectful manner. Perhaps some of you should be introduced to that concept.

[Tossica]

I will hand it to Arlos though... he tends to go on the attack in a tasteful and respectful manner. Perhaps some of you should be introduced to that concept.

You are an ignorant fuck. You don't deserve more than 2-3 word responses to your bullshit.

I feel dirty typing this much.

[Menelvir]

And my thoughts/posts aren't being scrutinized constantly?

I'm sure they are scrutinized, I never implied they weren't. I'm also sure some of it isn't scrutiny as much as it is personal attack, but that's just the nature of message boards, I s'pose.

And I might use the word 'extreme', but as far as I know, I haven't used the words 'stupid' or 'ignorant'. And I don't see 'extreme' as being equivalent to 'stupid' or 'insane', though in some contexts it might be.

Finally, I wouldn't use 'stupid' to describe an idea solely on the basis that I disagree with the idea. But I might find an idea stupid for other reasons which would make it otherwise disagreeable to me.

Does that make any sense? I'm not sure.

[Spazz]

And my thoughts/posts aren't being scrutinized constantly? 90+% of you subscribe to a more liberal mindset. Any deviation from that is immediately attacked and labeled as: stupid, extreme, ignorant, blah blah blah... I will hand it to Arlos though... he tends to go on the attack in a tasteful and respectful manner. Perhaps some of you should be introduced to that concept.

Theres some more of your bullshit. My politics go extreme to the right and the left and im capable of talking about them without acting like a complete ass most of the time. You say people who dont agree with you have a mental disorder and then wonder why you get flamed every time you post.

Your posts break down to . HERP A DERP I HATE GAYS DERPDERP LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER HERP A DERP GOD DAMN MEXICANS DERP AND IM CHRISTIAN ( when it suits you ) DERP and you wonder why people respond the way they do you ?

People dont hate on you because your right wing ideas they hate on you because you cant speak here without being a jackass.Your like a 14 year old girl and you thrive on negative attention.

[Narrock]

And my thoughts/posts aren't being scrutinized constantly?

I'm sure they are scrutinized, I never implied they weren't. I'm also sure some of it isn't scrutiny as much as it is personal attack, but that's just the nature of message boards, I s'pose.

And I might use the word 'extreme', but as far as I know, I haven't used the words 'stupid' or 'ignorant'. And I don't see 'extreme' as being equivalent to 'stupid' or 'insane', though in some contexts it might be.

Finally, I wouldn't use 'stupid' to describe an idea solely on the basis that I disagree with the idea. But I might find an idea stupid for other reasons which would make it otherwise disagreeable to me.

Does that make any sense? I'm not sure.

Yeah, to be fair, you have been more tactful.

[Narrock]

And my thoughts/posts aren't being scrutinized constantly? 90+% of you subscribe to a more liberal mindset. Any deviation from that is immediately attacked and labeled as: stupid, extreme, ignorant, blah blah blah... I will hand it to Arlos though... he tends to go on the attack in a tasteful and respectful manner. Perhaps some of you should be introduced to that concept.

Theres some more of your bullshit. My politics go extreme to the right and the left and im capable of talking about them without acting like a complete ass most of the time. You say people who dont agree with you have a mental disorder and then wonder why you get flamed every time you post.

Your posts break down to . HERP A DERP I HATE GAYS DERPDERP LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER HERP A DERP GOD DAMN MEXICANS DERP AND IM CHRISTIAN ( when it suits you ) DERP and you wonder why people respond the way they do you ?

People dont hate on you because your right wing ideas they hate on you because you cant speak here without being a jackass.Your like a 14 year old girl and you thrive on negative attention.

Dude, you just don't get it. Saying "I'm against gay marriage" DOES NOT EQUAL "I hate gays" or "I'm a homophobe." You only want to believe what you want to believe about me, and it has no basis in truth. And you are not capable of talking about issues without sounding like an ass. Go away, rat.

[Ginzburgh]

why are you against gay marriage?

[Spazz]

You use your religion as a shield. Your a bigot a hypocrite and totally full of shit. If not for your religion than what do you care if 2 queers get hitched ? They really arent bothering you and have no effect on your life or your marriage at all. Same with people who smoke dope or any other group you chose to talk down at.


Who said let he has not sinned cast the first stone again ? I forget and im pretty sure you can help me with that one.

Or how bout this one ?Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged .

If you answer those 2 questions honestly you will know why your a hypocrite and a tool.

[Narrock]

why are you against gay marriage?

Because I view marriage as a sacred religious ceremony... a holy matrimony. Homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes, and is for all intents and purposes "unholy." What I have stated several times before is that I have nothing against gays having civil unions so they get the same benefits as hetero married couples. I'm not a bigot, homophobe, <insert other ridiculous term here>, etc. That's why. I don't care what you have to say about it... you're not going to change my mind. You asked me a question straight up, and I answered you straight up.

[Gypsiyee]

The problem with that answer, Mindia, is that you're arguing semantics based on a word. The tax and insurance benefits provided to married couples have nothing to do with religion. You're saying that government should ban it based on religious beliefs, but our government--dating back to the founding fathers--made it clear that religion and government are not to be intertwined. The founding of our country had much to do with getting away from religious persecution, and yet your view is that you wish to bring that persecution back on those who don't believe as you do.

There are many homosexuals who are deeply religious--more religious than I am as an atheist, to be sure. Do you believe that atheists shouldn't get married, either? How about Jews? Should we all enter into civil unions and lose marriage certificates in lieu of new shiny Civil Union certificates?

You can't tout patriotism and constitutionalism and turn around and directly defy those very principles in the same breath. Telling two consenting adults what government should allow them to do or not do in their personal relationships treads a very fine line of hopping back to mid 20th century Germany.

You seem to be anti big brother on so many things, but when it comes to issues you disagree with you seem to have no problem with government intervening to prevent what you view as a sin against God. Government and religion are separate entities. No sooner should government be able to tell you whom you can worship than government should be able to tell people whom they can marry.

And.. since we're using Wikipedia to define things, here you go.

Marriage, defined:
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

[Narrock]

The problem with that answer, Mindia, is that you're arguing semantics based on a word. The tax and insurance benefits provided to married couples have nothing to do with religion. You're saying that government should ban it based on religious beliefs, but our government--dating back to the founding fathers--made it clear that religion and government are not to be intertwined. The founding of our country had much to do with getting away from religious persecution, and yet your view is that you wish to bring that persecution back on those who don't believe as you do.

There are many homosexuals who are deeply religious--more religious than I am as an atheist, to be sure. Do you believe that atheists shouldn't get married, either? How about Jews? Should we all enter into civil unions and lose marriage certificates in lieu of new shiny Civil Union certificates?

You can't tout patriotism and constitutionalism and turn around and directly defy those very principles in the same breath. Telling two consenting adults what government should allow them to do or not do in their personal relationships treads a very time line of hopping back to mid 20th century Germany.

You seem to be anti big brother on so many things, but when it comes to issues you disagree with you seem to have no problem with government intervening to prevent what you view as a sin against God. Government and religion are separate entities. No sooner should government be able to tell you whom you can worship than government should be able to tell people whom they can marry.

And.. since we're using Wikipedia to define things, here you go.

Marriage, defined:
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

You do make some interesting points, and in your usual very articulate manner, but millions of people, myself included, still view marriage as a holy matrimony. What's wrong with a civil union anyway? It's recognized by all states as far as I know and gives the couple tax and other benefits identical to a marriage cert. Why can't they just be happy with that? That satisfies heteros and gays alike. I've heard several GAYS say that GAYS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED because even a certain percentage of gays have respect for the holy act of marriage, so they either stay single, shack up, or just do a civil union if they want a life partner.

[Gypsiyee]

Okay, but then what of highly religious homosexuals? They do exist, after all. And what of atheists? What of weddings not ordained by a minister? Should all of these unions be called civil unions rather than marriage?

I understand your distinction, but you have to understand that the actual definition of marriage--though you yourself see it as holy--is modernly at its very essence exactly what you describe a civil union to be.

To me, the argument of the definitions of civil union vs. marriage is not much different than the difference between adopted children and biological children. If you want to call them different things, fine--but at the end of the day, I dare you to tell an adoptive parent that their children should be referred to as anything but simply their children.

Were we to actually invest any time or money into separating the definitions of the two, then really, shouldn't there be an all encompassing word for both marriage and civil unions as far as the government is concerned? The government should not make a distinction either way because then they'd be recognizing a specific religion.

Ceremonies and personal recognition notwithstanding, it isn't really up to government to decide what your family should be classified as. It's a slippery slope and something I feel is a waste of time and funding to delve into. It's up to individuals to define their own families.

[Narrock]

Okay, but then what of highly religious homosexuals? They do exist, after all. And what of atheists? What of weddings not ordained by a minister? Should all of these unions be called civil unions rather than marriage?

I understand your distinction, but you have to understand that the actual definition of marriage--though you yourself see it as holy--is modernly at its very essence exactly what you describe a civil union to be.

To me, the argument of the definitions of civil union vs. marriage is not much different than the difference between adopted children and biological children. If you want to call them different things, fine--but at the end of the day, I dare you to tell an adoptive parent that their children should be referred to as anything but simply their children.

Were we to actually invest any time or money into separating the definitions of the two, then really, shouldn't there be an all encompassing word for both marriage and civil unions as far as the government is concerned? The government should not make a distinction either way because then they'd be recognizing a specific religion.

Ceremonies and personal recognition notwithstanding, it isn't really up to government to decide what your family should be classified as. It's a slippery slope and something I feel is a waste of time and funding to delve into. It's up to individuals to define their own families.

Ok, you made a lot of points here. First, yes there are some "highly religious homosexuals" but they don't usually try to get "married" because they realize that their sexual behavior is an abomination in God's eyes. As far as Atheists and/or weddings not ordained by a minister... I'm not sure about that one. It's a good point actually.

With the actual definition of marriage, why would the Mormon church spend hundreds of millions of dollars defending that exact definition which is most commonly referred to as "Between a man and a woman" in additon to being a holy ceremony? It's obviously extremely important to them and to millions of other people.

Children, adopted or not, does not sit fairly in the gay marriage argument. C'mon now. lol

I agree that millions of dollars are being spent frivolously on this whole concept. Which is yet another reason why gays should just leave it be.

[Ginzburgh]

Wow mission accomplished

[Spazz]

Would it bother you if your marriage was called a civil union ? This comes down to if you think what you believe is more important than what others believe. At the end of the day I dont see how gays getting married effects you or what the big deal is about it. The world is a big place and at the end of the day if your not harming anyone there is room for all of us.

[Narrock]

Wow mission accomplished

"mission accomplished" in your eyes was because I said she had a good point about atheists?? Really? lol

[Gypsiyee]

Okay, but then what of highly religious homosexuals? They do exist, after all. And what of atheists? What of weddings not ordained by a minister? Should all of these unions be called civil unions rather than marriage?

I understand your distinction, but you have to understand that the actual definition of marriage--though you yourself see it as holy--is modernly at its very essence exactly what you describe a civil union to be.

To me, the argument of the definitions of civil union vs. marriage is not much different than the difference between adopted children and biological children. If you want to call them different things, fine--but at the end of the day, I dare you to tell an adoptive parent that their children should be referred to as anything but simply their children.

Were we to actually invest any time or money into separating the definitions of the two, then really, shouldn't there be an all encompassing word for both marriage and civil unions as far as the government is concerned? The government should not make a distinction either way because then they'd be recognizing a specific religion.

Ceremonies and personal recognition notwithstanding, it isn't really up to government to decide what your family should be classified as. It's a slippery slope and something I feel is a waste of time and funding to delve into. It's up to individuals to define their own families.

Ok, you made a lot of points here. First, yes there are some "highly religious homosexuals" but they don't usually try to get "married" because they realize that their sexual behavior is an abomination in God's eyes. As far as Atheists and/or weddings not ordained by a minister... I'm not sure about that one. It's a good point actually.

With the actual definition of marriage, why would the Mormon church spend hundreds of millions of dollars defending that exact definition which is most commonly referred to as "Between a man and a woman" in additon to being a holy ceremony? It's obviously extremely important to them and to millions of other people.

Children, adopted or not, does not sit fairly in the gay marriage argument. C'mon now. lol

I agree that millions of dollars are being spent frivolously on this whole concept. Which is yet another reason why gays should just leave it be.

But the arguments are completely different. They're arguing to have the same rights, tax breaks, rights in hospital rooms, etc. You're arguing for rights to a word which essentially serves only the purpose of making you feel better that something you believe is sacred is being held sacred in the eyes of government. It changes nothing else; it changes no laws, nor does it change the validity of your own marriage.

And I don't see how adopted children are much different than marriage. You love your wife and consider her as much a part of your family as you do your daughter, don't you? Do you think LGBT people love their significant others, husbands, or wives any differently or that they don't consider them as much family as you do your own?

[Narrock]

Okay, but then what of highly religious homosexuals? They do exist, after all. And what of atheists? What of weddings not ordained by a minister? Should all of these unions be called civil unions rather than marriage?

I understand your distinction, but you have to understand that the actual definition of marriage--though you yourself see it as holy--is modernly at its very essence exactly what you describe a civil union to be.

To me, the argument of the definitions of civil union vs. marriage is not much different than the difference between adopted children and biological children. If you want to call them different things, fine--but at the end of the day, I dare you to tell an adoptive parent that their children should be referred to as anything but simply their children.

Were we to actually invest any time or money into separating the definitions of the two, then really, shouldn't there be an all encompassing word for both marriage and civil unions as far as the government is concerned? The government should not make a distinction either way because then they'd be recognizing a specific religion.

Ceremonies and personal recognition notwithstanding, it isn't really up to government to decide what your family should be classified as. It's a slippery slope and something I feel is a waste of time and funding to delve into. It's up to individuals to define their own families.

Ok, you made a lot of points here. First, yes there are some "highly religious homosexuals" but they don't usually try to get "married" because they realize that their sexual behavior is an abomination in God's eyes. As far as Atheists and/or weddings not ordained by a minister... I'm not sure about that one. It's a good point actually.

With the actual definition of marriage, why would the Mormon church spend hundreds of millions of dollars defending that exact definition which is most commonly referred to as "Between a man and a woman" in additon to being a holy ceremony? It's obviously extremely important to them and to millions of other people.

Children, adopted or not, does not sit fairly in the gay marriage argument. C'mon now. lol

I agree that millions of dollars are being spent frivolously on this whole concept. Which is yet another reason why gays should just leave it be.

But the arguments are completely different. They're arguing to have the same rights, tax breaks, rights in hospital rooms, etc. You're arguing for rights to a word which essentially serves only the purpose of making you feel better that something you believe is sacred is being held sacred in the eyes of government. It changes nothing else; it changes no laws, nor does it change the validity of your own marriage.

And I don't see how adopted children are much different than marriage. You love your wife and consider her as much a part of your family as you do your daughter, don't you? Do you think LGBT people love their significant others, husbands, or wives any differently or that they don't consider them as much family as you do your own?

Rights to a word and a sacred ceremony.

[Arlos]

Rights to a word and a sacred ceremony.

Ahhhh, but no one is asking you to change your sacred ceremony, are they? I have not seen anywhere any attempt to force religions that object to hold a religious marriage ceremony for those they do not feel are eligible. So they really are not intruding on your Sacrament, are they, if your church isn't involved in their union?

See, part of the problem is, everyone is using the same word to discuss two wildly different aspects. There's the religious sacrament of marriage, which I fully understand you objecting to opening up, at least within the bounds of the faith you follow. But there's also the legal and societal concept of marriage, which is really pretty much an economic contract at its core, along with fringe elements like regulations about who can visit in the hospital, etc. The problem of differentiation has arisen because those 2 concepts have historically been linked, as in, get married in a church for the sacrament, and get the secular part too. But there is no absolute NEED to link them.

No one is asking you to change your sacrament. As far as your church is concerned, their Sacrament of marriage is, and always will be, solely for between a man and a woman. Nor should anyone try and take that away from you. But marriage-as-Sacrament is not the same thing as marriage-as-civil-contract. As far as the secular authorities are concerned, they don't care of the sexes getting married in a civil marriage, just that they are willing to enter that contract.

Hell, if the differentiation means that much to you, just refer to gay marriages, along with any other marriages that take place outside the aspect of a church (and there are lots of them, how do you think athiests get married? ), as "Civil Marriages." That is what they are, after all, mostly, though there are various religious faiths that don't object to gay marriage, and so their particular religious observances may be involved along with the civil part. Since you aren't a follower of those religions, though, what they do and don't consider legal should be of no concern to you, any more than you care about, say, a Hindu's proscription from eating beef.

So yeah, I honestly, I would completely understand and support you fighting if people WERE trying to get religions to offer the Sacrament to those they don't feel are eligible. But that's not happening. These are largely marriages taking place completely separate from any religious trappings whatsoever (in front of a judge, instead of a minister/priest), so why should the fact they are called the same thing bother you, when the actuality of what they are is completely different?

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Rights to a word and a sacred ceremony.

Ahhhh, but no one is asking you to change your sacred ceremony, are they? I have not seen anywhere any attempt to force religions that object to hold a religious marriage ceremony for those they do not feel are eligible. So they really are not intruding on your Sacrament, are they, if your church isn't involved in their union?

See, part of the problem is, everyone is using the same word to discuss two wildly different aspects. There's the religious sacrament of marriage, which I fully understand you objecting to opening up, at least within the bounds of the faith you follow. But there's also the legal and societal concept of marriage, which is really pretty much an economic contract at its core, along with fringe elements like regulations about who can visit in the hospital, etc. The problem of differentiation has arisen because those 2 concepts have historically been linked, as in, get married in a church for the sacrament, and get the secular part too. But there is no absolute NEED to link them.

No one is asking you to change your sacrament. As far as your church is concerned, their Sacrament of marriage is, and always will be, solely for between a man and a woman. Nor should anyone try and take that away from you. But marriage-as-Sacrament is not the same thing as marriage-as-civil-contract. As far as the secular authorities are concerned, they don't care of the sexes getting married in a civil marriage, just that they are willing to enter that contract.

Hell, if the differentiation means that much to you, just refer to gay marriages, along with any other marriages that take place outside the aspect of a church (and there are lots of them, how do you think athiests get married? ), as "Civil Marriages." That is what they are, after all, mostly, though there are various religious faiths that don't object to gay marriage, and so their particular religious observances may be involved along with the civil part. Since you aren't a follower of those religions, though, what they do and don't consider legal should be of no concern to you, any more than you care about, say, a Hindu's proscription from eating beef.

So yeah, I honestly, I would completely understand and support you fighting if people WERE trying to get religions to offer the Sacrament to those they don't feel are eligible. But that's not happening. These are largely marriages taking place completely separate from any religious trappings whatsoever (in front of a judge, instead of a minister/priest), so why should the fact they are called the same thing bother you, when the actuality of what they are is completely different?

-Arlos

It's not about changing we in the Christian community... it's about preserving and defending the holy and sacred rite of marriage, under any circumstances and in any place in America. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to defend the issue... I really wish it would just go away forever. But, as long as the gays keep pushing the issue and bringing it up every year (just to be pains in the asses, no pun intended) we will be right there defending again, and will defend it over and over again until it's pounded in their head that we won't cave in. This could all so easily just go away...