| |
Main
Date: 21 Jul 2006 09:43:39
From: John Steinberg
Subject: [OT] Newton's 3rd, Trolls & Plonking: Netiquette 101 - Lecture 1603
|
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
-- Sir Isaac Newton
sci.astro.amateur is a wonderful newsgroup wherein one can learn much
about amateur astronomy, telescopes and all of the related hard and
software. For those of us who have been reading and/or posting for any
length of time here, it's clear one can derive information and the kind
of pleasure hobbyists of all stripes can appreciate.
But like many newsgroups, there are agents of distraction here, whose
self-serving objective is simply the cognitive dissonance created by
posting issues that are controversial, off-topic, irrelevant, puerile,
anti-social, bizarre, and/or any combination of the above.
We call people who engage in this kind of behavior trolls and label
their behavior as trolling. We need not delve into their motives or
what's lacking in their makeup, mental health, intelligence or private
lives. It's simply enough to recognize that their melons are too soft
to consider putting into your virtual newsgroup shopping cart.
Now, none of this should come as a revelation to anyone who has spent
any time here or on Usenet.
However, there is a trend here that does need require some discussion,
and that trend is the public plonking, often seen as *plonk*, PLONK!,
or some variation on this theme.
The motivation on the part of the individuals engaging in the puplic
plonking is clear. They are expressing their emotional reaction to the
plonked poster or his/her posting. In the virtual sense, they are
killing them off, saying, in effect "be gone scalawag, I have no use
for you in my newsgroup life."
While this undoubtedly provides some immediate and visceral sense of
satisfaction on the part of the plonker, it is far too often a pyrrhic
victory at best.
Why?
As we see daily, there's a class of troll that simply morphs into
other personalities so as to override filtering. And by telling them
they've been plonked, you have thus alerted them to make that morph.
That's a bit like telling your chess opponent what your next move will
be. Generally not a good idea.
Trolls are motivated by a multifactorial range of reactions and the
public plonk is something many actually welcome. Remember, the trolls
objective is just attention; good or bad.
What's remarkable, at least to me, is that there is a subset of regular
s.a.a. users who have publicly plonked the same parties dozens of
times.
How many times does one have to drop a sledge hammer on their foot
before they realize it hurts, every time?
Now, keeping your plonking private may not provide the same
gratification as doing so publicly, and while it will not stop the
morphing troll from morphing, at least it's a step in a better
direction.
Thus, in conclusion, I submit that this public plonking behavior is
counterproductive, contrary to good newsgroup hygiene and really just a
waste of time and bandwidth.
Indifference is a far more effective troll management technique. It
wastes no time, uses no newsgroup resources or bandwidth, and kills
trolling threads and trolls faster than cloud cover can ruin a night of
observing.
Thank you for your attention.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
[BTW, I'm painfully aware that even a post such as this provides some
red meat to the trolls, but short of sending private emails to all
s.a.a. posters, it was the only viable alternative.]
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 09:27:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Newton's 3rd, Trolls & Plonking: Netiquette 101 - Lecture 1603
|
Here is the time lapse footage which supports that planetary orbital
motion is seen directly from Earth thereby affirming the Copernican
principles and destroying the Newtonian mutation which has caused so
much damage to astronomy -
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/ss-images/JuSa2000_retrogr.gif
"For to the earth planetary appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Isaac
The best insights are those which are easy to understand which is why
it is easy to demolish Isaac's outlook with one single observation
condensed by time lapse footage into a gorgeous solution based on an
orbitally moving Earth.
Who will join the great astronomers in restoring the original reasoning
behind the Western astronomical tradition through the Copernican
insight and its later refinements ?.
oriel36 wrote:
> John Steinberg wrote:
> > "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> > -- Sir Isaac Newton
> >
>
> He also wrote this false statement that is astronomically incorrect -
>
> "For to the earth planetary appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> always seen direct, " Isaac
>
> What makes it false is that planetary orbital heliocentric motion is
> seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth -
>
> http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/05.motion_planets/jupiter_saturn_retro.gif
>
> The spiel of trolls is a waste of time when simple time lapse footage
> reveals the wonderful and easy to understand reasoning of Copernicus
> and from there into the intricate Keplerian refinements.
>
> The era of the mathematician's vandalism of the noble astronomical
> tradition is over,contemporary technology smashes the useless
> linguistic wordplays that have tried to confuse and conceal what is
> essentially something easy to reveal for those with intuitive
> intelligence - how to discern the orbital motion of the Earth
> overtaking the slower orbital motion of the outer planets thereby
> affirming that planetary heliocentric motion is seen directly from
> Earth.
>
>
>
> >
> > sci.astro.amateur is a wonderful newsgroup wherein one can learn much
> > about amateur astronomy, telescopes and all of the related hard and
> > software. For those of us who have been reading and/or posting for any
> > length of time here, it's clear one can derive information and the kind
> > of pleasure hobbyists of all stripes can appreciate.
> >
> > But like many newsgroups, there are agents of distraction here, whose
> > self-serving objective is simply the cognitive dissonance created by
> > posting issues that are controversial, off-topic, irrelevant, puerile,
> > anti-social, bizarre, and/or any combination of the above.
> >
> > We call people who engage in this kind of behavior trolls and label
> > their behavior as trolling. We need not delve into their motives or
> > what's lacking in their makeup, mental health, intelligence or private
> > lives. It's simply enough to recognize that their melons are too soft
> > to consider putting into your virtual newsgroup shopping cart.
> >
> > Now, none of this should come as a revelation to anyone who has spent
> > any time here or on Usenet.
> >
> > However, there is a trend here that does need require some discussion,
> > and that trend is the public plonking, often seen as *plonk*, PLONK!,
> > or some variation on this theme.
> >
> > The motivation on the part of the individuals engaging in the puplic
> > plonking is clear. They are expressing their emotional reaction to the
> > plonked poster or his/her posting. In the virtual sense, they are
> > killing them off, saying, in effect "be gone scalawag, I have no use
> > for you in my newsgroup life."
> >
> > While this undoubtedly provides some immediate and visceral sense of
> > satisfaction on the part of the plonker, it is far too often a pyrrhic
> > victory at best.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > As we see daily, there's a class of troll that simply morphs into
> > other personalities so as to override filtering. And by telling them
> > they've been plonked, you have thus alerted them to make that morph.
> >
> > That's a bit like telling your chess opponent what your next move will
> > be. Generally not a good idea.
> >
> > Trolls are motivated by a multifactorial range of reactions and the
> > public plonk is something many actually welcome. Remember, the trolls
> > objective is just attention; good or bad.
> >
> > What's remarkable, at least to me, is that there is a subset of regular
> > s.a.a. users who have publicly plonked the same parties dozens of
> > times.
> >
> > How many times does one have to drop a sledge hammer on their foot
> > before they realize it hurts, every time?
> >
> > Now, keeping your plonking private may not provide the same
> > gratification as doing so publicly, and while it will not stop the
> > morphing troll from morphing, at least it's a step in a better
> > direction.
> >
> > Thus, in conclusion, I submit that this public plonking behavior is
> > counterproductive, contrary to good newsgroup hygiene and really just a
> > waste of time and bandwidth.
> >
> > Indifference is a far more effective troll management technique. It
> > wastes no time, uses no newsgroup resources or bandwidth, and kills
> > trolling threads and trolls faster than cloud cover can ruin a night of
> > observing.
> >
> > Thank you for your attention.
> >
> > We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
> >
> >
> > [BTW, I'm painfully aware that even a post such as this provides some
> > red meat to the trolls, but short of sending private emails to all
> > s.a.a. posters, it was the only viable alternative.]
> >
> > --
> > -John Steinberg
> > email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 09:19:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Newton's 3rd, Trolls & Plonking: Netiquette 101 - Lecture 1603
|
John Steinberg wrote:
> "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> -- Sir Isaac Newton
>
He also wrote this false statement that is astronomically incorrect -
"For to the earth planetary appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Isaac
What makes it false is that planetary orbital heliocentric motion is
seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/05.motion_planets/jupiter_saturn_retro.gif
The spiel of trolls is a waste of time when simple time lapse footage
reveals the wonderful and easy to understand reasoning of Copernicus
and from there into the intricate Keplerian refinements.
The era of the mathematician's vandalism of the noble astronomical
tradition is over,contemporary technology smashes the useless
linguistic wordplays that have tried to confuse and conceal what is
essentially something easy to reveal for those with intuitive
intelligence - how to discern the orbital motion of the Earth
overtaking the slower orbital motion of the outer planets thereby
affirming that planetary heliocentric motion is seen directly from
Earth.
>
> sci.astro.amateur is a wonderful newsgroup wherein one can learn much
> about amateur astronomy, telescopes and all of the related hard and
> software. For those of us who have been reading and/or posting for any
> length of time here, it's clear one can derive information and the kind
> of pleasure hobbyists of all stripes can appreciate.
>
> But like many newsgroups, there are agents of distraction here, whose
> self-serving objective is simply the cognitive dissonance created by
> posting issues that are controversial, off-topic, irrelevant, puerile,
> anti-social, bizarre, and/or any combination of the above.
>
> We call people who engage in this kind of behavior trolls and label
> their behavior as trolling. We need not delve into their motives or
> what's lacking in their makeup, mental health, intelligence or private
> lives. It's simply enough to recognize that their melons are too soft
> to consider putting into your virtual newsgroup shopping cart.
>
> Now, none of this should come as a revelation to anyone who has spent
> any time here or on Usenet.
>
> However, there is a trend here that does need require some discussion,
> and that trend is the public plonking, often seen as *plonk*, PLONK!,
> or some variation on this theme.
>
> The motivation on the part of the individuals engaging in the puplic
> plonking is clear. They are expressing their emotional reaction to the
> plonked poster or his/her posting. In the virtual sense, they are
> killing them off, saying, in effect "be gone scalawag, I have no use
> for you in my newsgroup life."
>
> While this undoubtedly provides some immediate and visceral sense of
> satisfaction on the part of the plonker, it is far too often a pyrrhic
> victory at best.
>
> Why?
>
> As we see daily, there's a class of troll that simply morphs into
> other personalities so as to override filtering. And by telling them
> they've been plonked, you have thus alerted them to make that morph.
>
> That's a bit like telling your chess opponent what your next move will
> be. Generally not a good idea.
>
> Trolls are motivated by a multifactorial range of reactions and the
> public plonk is something many actually welcome. Remember, the trolls
> objective is just attention; good or bad.
>
> What's remarkable, at least to me, is that there is a subset of regular
> s.a.a. users who have publicly plonked the same parties dozens of
> times.
>
> How many times does one have to drop a sledge hammer on their foot
> before they realize it hurts, every time?
>
> Now, keeping your plonking private may not provide the same
> gratification as doing so publicly, and while it will not stop the
> morphing troll from morphing, at least it's a step in a better
> direction.
>
> Thus, in conclusion, I submit that this public plonking behavior is
> counterproductive, contrary to good newsgroup hygiene and really just a
> waste of time and bandwidth.
>
> Indifference is a far more effective troll management technique. It
> wastes no time, uses no newsgroup resources or bandwidth, and kills
> trolling threads and trolls faster than cloud cover can ruin a night of
> observing.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
>
>
> [BTW, I'm painfully aware that even a post such as this provides some
> red meat to the trolls, but short of sending private emails to all
> s.a.a. posters, it was the only viable alternative.]
>
> --
> -John Steinberg
> email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 10:08:23
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: [OT] Newton's 3rd, Trolls & Plonking: Netiquette 101 - Lecture
|
John Steinberg, you're right, of course. The sincerest plonk is the
silent plonk. The noisy ones are grandstanding, done more for the
satisfaction of the plonker.
--
St. John
My mother loved children -- she would have given anything if I had been
one.
-Groucho Marx
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 17:23:31
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: [OT] Newton's 3rd, Trolls & Plonking: Netiquette 101 - Lecture
|
John Steinberg wrote:
> Thus, in conclusion, I submit that this public plonking behavior is
> counterproductive, contrary to good newsgroup hygiene and really just a
> waste of time and bandwidth.
Thanks for the spanking, John. I deserved it. No more public plonking
from me.
--
Martin R. Howell
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 17:57:38
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: [OT] Newton's 3rd, Trolls & Plonking: Netiquette 101 - Lecture 1603
|
"Martin R. Howell" wrote
> John Steinberg wrote:
>
>> Thus, in conclusion, I submit that this public plonking behavior is
>> counterproductive, contrary to good newsgroup hygiene and really just a
>> waste of time and bandwidth.
> Thanks for the spanking, John. I deserved it. No more public plonking
> from me.
Good, Martin. Just think of silent plonking, which could be construed as,
um, silent but deadly. ;-)
|
|
