HelsEch
ICE ICE ICE!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
So anyone reading the Bible thread in here may recognize this post which at the end makes a stab at a response of mine.
Not expecting this guy to reply, but it does hurt me to be called a troll for making an assumption as most of the people there on one side of an argument or another have. It doesn't make me a troll. It makes me a bit thoughtless and judgmental, but not intentional attempting to anger anyone for personal enjoyment. Then I recalled that an increasing number of people are forgetting what trolling even is and being friends with one Amgroma has lead me with the typical definition at my disposal.
Now, trolling requires the party performing the act to feel pleasure in doing so, thus it is an action that can only be absolutely determined by the one performing it, though there are some subtle features that one could pick up on or if the act is particularly elaborate then you can assume trolling has occurred. If pleasure can't be determined then the act is flaming, which while still considered purposeful isn't connected to any emotion on the acting party's account. Flaming is when one person purposefully angers another. This term was commonly used before trolling, but was eventually replaced in the rules of most forums. Despite the usurpation, trolling and flaming are still considered different.
Finally, a term that is without purpose is irritation. If someone irritates you then he's angered you without need of purpose or emotion on his part. If I were in a court room accusing someone of upsetting my client, I'd say the person was irritating. Now in real life we don't put people in court for being annoying, but it seems to happen on the internet.
I guess what I'm trying to say is kids need to learn that you can't go calling every person a troll.
Not expecting this guy to reply, but it does hurt me to be called a troll for making an assumption as most of the people there on one side of an argument or another have. It doesn't make me a troll. It makes me a bit thoughtless and judgmental, but not intentional attempting to anger anyone for personal enjoyment. Then I recalled that an increasing number of people are forgetting what trolling even is and being friends with one Amgroma has lead me with the typical definition at my disposal.
Now, trolling requires the party performing the act to feel pleasure in doing so, thus it is an action that can only be absolutely determined by the one performing it, though there are some subtle features that one could pick up on or if the act is particularly elaborate then you can assume trolling has occurred. If pleasure can't be determined then the act is flaming, which while still considered purposeful isn't connected to any emotion on the acting party's account. Flaming is when one person purposefully angers another. This term was commonly used before trolling, but was eventually replaced in the rules of most forums. Despite the usurpation, trolling and flaming are still considered different.
Finally, a term that is without purpose is irritation. If someone irritates you then he's angered you without need of purpose or emotion on his part. If I were in a court room accusing someone of upsetting my client, I'd say the person was irritating. Now in real life we don't put people in court for being annoying, but it seems to happen on the internet.
I guess what I'm trying to say is kids need to learn that you can't go calling every person a troll.
Maybe he meant crotch? XD