[Chuck Dye]

It is an accepted practice here, and at other boards, that we should not feed the trolls: it is the reaction that the troll is here for. As I spend more time here, and read more, I have decided there are some here who are engaging in recreational hysterics all too similar to the behavior of trolls. The recreational hysteric engages in an act of emotional self gratification very much as the troll does, the main difference being that the recreational hysteric may get much of his or her reward in the posting and may not be dependent on responses. The style is to rant and rave against "THEM," in a thoroughly demagogic way using inflammatory language, often drawing horrendous connections from a cited article or an event where calmer observers find little or no connection. The recreational hysteric tends to be an absolutist and, as the goal is the pleasure of a tantrum, the absolutism may only be consistent within a single thread: what is absolutely abhorrent today may be horribly absent tomorrow. The goal is pleasant public outrage, not consistency or sense

While I believe the recreational hysteric is less dependent on the responses of other, I am sure that at least some of their gratification comes from that source. That reward only encourages recreational hysterics as it does trolls and so I ask:


PLEASE DON’T FEED THE RECREATIONAL HYSTERICS.

[Wildalaska]

Bravo!

Wildoopsisthisarecreationalhystericpost?Alaska

[Mark Tyson]

There are trolls who don't necessarily use inflammatory language, too.

[roscoe]

Hear hear!

[Malone LaVeigh]

... as opposed to a professional hysterics, I suppose. They all have jobs in talk radio.

[Langenator]

Actually Malone, there are far more professional hysterics employed by NARAL, the Brady Bunch, People for the American Way, Earth First, etc.

[Khornet]

it's the "Talk radio right-wing conspiracy overthrowng democracy" thing again.

'course, those talk radio guys only thrive because the mass of Americans are ignorant, gullible, and hateful anyway. We should just shut up and swallow the picture painted by our betters at PBS, see-BS, etc.

[TheBluesMan]

There's a difference between trolling and vehemently disagreeing with someone. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish that difference, but if a member seems sincere I don't see the harm in engaging in intelligent debate.

[Mark Tyson]

Right, but some guys come into a thread and post a response on an unrelated topic in a manner guaranteed to provoke(not necessarly inflammatory though). That's kind of tacky if you ask me.

[MeekandMild]

Don't forget NPR!


Oops, sorry, the NPR bunch are all borderlines. Hysteria implies some sort of sexual innuendo. :rolleyes:

[Sergeant Bob]

Mark Tyson Right, but some guys come into a thread and post a response on an unrelated topic in a manner guaranteed to provoke(not necessarly inflammatory though). That's kind of tacky if you ask me.
I suppose some guys believe that women should be excluded from the debate based solely on the fact they are women? Should they just be relegated to the kitchen and raising children and have no business conversing on political topics as some guys do?;)

Was I close?:D

[Ryder]

"Guys" is a politically correct term denoting any group of people now.

I read about it in the news :D

[Mark Tyson]

Oh Lordy. This was the one place I thought I wouldn't have to decend into politically correct depths by writing "he or she" constantly. For future reference, the terms "he", "man", or "guy", shall not be restricted to members of the male sex unless otherwise noted.

[TheBluesMan]

I think y'all missed the point of Sgt. Bob's post.

He was being sarcastic; taking this thread and veering it like the trolls seem to do.

Effective, no?

[Sergeant Bob]

Thanks Blues Man!

Sorry Mark. I really wasn't trying to pull your chain. Just trying to give an example of how many try to win the debate by argueing everything but the actual subject of the debate, and putting the other party on the defensive.