Trouble with Trolls
By
Bat1
on May 9, 2006 at 11:42 am
68 Comments
Lately, there have been a growing number of complaints regarding “Diane” including suggestions that she be banned from further comments.
Our host, Rob, has declined those suggestions. The rules here are his to determine and his to enforce. I gather that there was one such person banned in the past, but the threshold pertained to actual threats made, rather than the tedious belligerence and vile invective offered by Diane.
Instead of sporadic comments scattered about various posts, I’ve chosen to address the problem this way, through a post to be seen, and discussed, by all.
For if Rob feels compelled not to enforce a ban, as his certainly his right, there is still no reason that the rest of us should not discuss the situation among ourselves and determine our own options and how best to deal with the problem.
Dave, and others, have suggested that best course of action is to simply ignore Diane from here on. I agree. I have tried reasoning, and arguing, with her, to no avail. I have even suggested that she consider taking her very own advice, the advice she adamantly insists the US follow, which is to heed the hate, disdain, and lack of respect of the rest of the world (according to her) and change our policies accordingly. The irony of my suggestion, as Likwishoe noted last evening, is obviously lost on her.
Again, the rules about banning someone are Rob’s to make and enforce. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else should not have their own say, or decide what our other options are and what actions we each decide is appropriate. For any "shunning" to be effective, I think it should include as many persons as possible. I may be the newest "regular" here, but I am no less offended by her behavior. To disagree... with Dave, or WOOF, or anyone else, is one thing. That is, after all, the point. To be continually rude, offensve, and beligerent about it, is another matter entirely.
Comments?
Our host, Rob, has declined those suggestions. The rules here are his to determine and his to enforce. I gather that there was one such person banned in the past, but the threshold pertained to actual threats made, rather than the tedious belligerence and vile invective offered by Diane.
Instead of sporadic comments scattered about various posts, I’ve chosen to address the problem this way, through a post to be seen, and discussed, by all.
For if Rob feels compelled not to enforce a ban, as his certainly his right, there is still no reason that the rest of us should not discuss the situation among ourselves and determine our own options and how best to deal with the problem.
Dave, and others, have suggested that best course of action is to simply ignore Diane from here on. I agree. I have tried reasoning, and arguing, with her, to no avail. I have even suggested that she consider taking her very own advice, the advice she adamantly insists the US follow, which is to heed the hate, disdain, and lack of respect of the rest of the world (according to her) and change our policies accordingly. The irony of my suggestion, as Likwishoe noted last evening, is obviously lost on her.
Again, the rules about banning someone are Rob’s to make and enforce. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else should not have their own say, or decide what our other options are and what actions we each decide is appropriate. For any "shunning" to be effective, I think it should include as many persons as possible. I may be the newest "regular" here, but I am no less offended by her behavior. To disagree... with Dave, or WOOF, or anyone else, is one thing. That is, after all, the point. To be continually rude, offensve, and beligerent about it, is another matter entirely.
Comments?
can be as crass as any other.
goon
The Whistler
MarineVet
robert108
Proof
Rodney Graves
Neiman
Carrick
