A good challenge, Edg, and one I'll be interested in seeing Shemp's reply to.
Here's my "take" on the syndrome, not about Shemp per se, but about the phenomenon itself. In Net parlance, it's called trolling. From my mystical perspective, I call it trolling for attention. The Net is full of trolls. But what is it that they are trolling *for*? In my opinion (and again, that's all it is...NOT a declaration that anything I specu- late about here is true, or "truth"), those who have a consistent pattern of posting provocative material on controversial topics, topics that they *know* will push buttons in the other readers, are usually trolling for two things. The first is to see who among the readers is silly enough to get into the game of Defending One's Beliefs. I mean...they're *just* beliefs, right? Everybody's got 'em, just like everybody's got an asshole. Having beliefs doesn't make one any more special than having an asshole, *whatever* the beliefs may be. However much one tries to assert the "truth" of one's beliefs, in the end they remain beliefs. However much one tries to "defend" one's beliefs, or to "refute" seemingly contradictory beliefs, they remain beliefs. And yet. Some people consistently can be sucked into the game of "defending" their beliefs, or "refuting" the beliefs of others. While I admit that this might be appropriate for matters of fact, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ( Everybody! knows that the answer to this one is 42! ), I don't really see how it's terribly appropriate when it comes to beliefs, except as a way to have fun. You see this exception here on Fairfield Life a lot, and it always warms the cockles of my heart ( what the hell *are* heart cockles, anyway? ) every time I see it. Someone will ask a provocative question or make a provocative statement, hoping for an emotional, button-pushed reaction, and someone will reply to it FOR FUN, without any emotion in their response but humor. They'll take the provocative post and *run with it*, have FUN with it, take it to places that the original poster/troll never imagined. Rory is great at this, as is Tom T., as are Marek and Curtis and Rick and a host of others. They are giving the trollbait *attention*, but only the attention of bliss and humor and light. And then there are the non-exceptions to the rule, the ones who fall for the troll's bait almost every time, and who put their *attention* into acting out the fact that their buttons got pushed. They're investing their attention in the trollbait as well, but ( in the term- inology I'm used to using ) from a different state of attention, a state of attention characterized by strong emotion and aversion and a seeming need *to* "defend" the beliefs that the small s self has characterized as "truth." In the former case, the troll has been foiled. Instead of suckering the respondant into reacting from an ego- bound state of attention, the respondant uses the bait to transcend, to a *less* ego-bound state of attention. In the latter case, the troll "wins" Stage One of the Trolling Game, because he ( they're almost always 'he's ) has suckered the respondant into locking themselves *into* an ego-bound state of attention. Stage Two of the Trolling Game is just to troll for attention, period. The troll might just be lonely, and desperate for someone -- anyone -- to react to them and talk to them. ( I honestly think that's why Richard Williams does his trolling. ) In some cases, the troll might be hoping for a strong reaction because he or she is consciously trying to bring other people down. ( That's a rarer phenomenon, and one that I don't think we see here on FFL very much. ) And in a few rare cases that I've encountered on the Internet, trolls troll for attention because they *get off* on sucking other people's attention, the psychic "hit" they get when they can get other people to focus their attention on them. ( Some schools of mystical thought refer to such individuals as "vibe vampires." ) Whatever the reason the troll trolls, the reader and potential "victim" of the trolling ( uh...would that be 'For whom the troll tolls?' ) has several choices as to how to react. He/she could react by not reacting, either by reading the post and not replying, or by not bothering to read the posts of known trolls in the first place. Or he/she could react by reacting strongly, and getting heavily into the defend/refute game. OR, as suggested above, he/she could take the attention field of the trollpost and transmute it alchemically and HAVE FUN with it. Me, these days, I generally go for Door Number One with the people I've come to regard as Mainly Trolls. I read their posts, but click Next the instant they slam any- one here, and I never REWARD low-energy troll posts -- and the trolls themselves -- by responding to them. UNLESS I can think of a funny way to do so. I haven't been able to think up too many funny replies to Shemp's posts lately, so I haven't been replying to them. And I'm not about to get sucked into the defend/ refute fests many of them are intended to provoke. That said, I for one appreciate you bringing up this topic, Edg. If for no other reason, you've given me a cool soapbox from which to pontificate. But I'll really be interested in seeing where this discussion leads, because it's an interesting topic. Trolling is a fasc- inating subject, especially for the spiritually- minded. As I hope I've suggested above, it can be viewed as a kind of spiritual *opportunity*, along the lines of Castaneda's "worthy opponent" concept. Or it can be viewed as Just Another Finger Pushing Just Another Button. Same troll, *very* different reactions here on Fairfield Life. I'm hoping that many of the posters here can find a way to put into words why they respond to trolls the way that they do. --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shemp, > > You've been very LOUD in wanting us all to believe that the Global > Warming concept is bogus. I've challenged you to give us a statement > about the "pollution" aspects of the Global Warming debate, and you've > not responded. If you want me to read your posts, you've got to be > honest and communicative -- I asked you, publicly and privately, to > answer me, but nothing came. So, on the theory that you're a good > guy, I'm going to try again -- a little louder, and, yes, a little > more harshly. > > First of all, I'll admit that it's definitely NOT your job to do > anything for me. But when I see your impact on the discussions here, > I'm counting them as distractions at best and, usually, an odd sort of > churlish jingoism, and I'm wanting that to stop, so perforce, I must > confront you. > > I know I'm getting personal here when, obviously, I don't know you. > My grievences against your concepts are not necessarily "proof of your > having personality defects." I don't know your background, age, etc., > so I'm just guessing where you're really coming from. I don't know if > you're "just stupid and loud" or much worse, a fucking Internet Troll > who thinks it's fun trying to incite anger and general negativity. I > hope a cascade of posters here will correct me if my take on you is > way off base. Maybe my own stupidity is projecting, maybe you have > ten thousand followers who buy your used underwear on eBay. You could > be a saint in disguise and I've failed the "eyesight test." > > Here's your challenge, Shemp. Read the below article. It's the top > 25 news stories that didn't make the headlines -- stories that > BigMedia ignored. I've seen this kind of list every year for what > seems like two decades now, and, year after year, it's always the same > thing: Evil Forces Are Afoot and it rhymes with MONEY. > > http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm > > This list is ENOUGH TO START A CIVIL WAR in most countries. It is so > obvious that our cultures are being systematically manipulated to > insure profits for Big Money. > > Read the list, Shemp. Do some research. Google down. > > I like your energy, but, man, you gotta do some homework -- your posts > here are strong evidence that you have a logical brain, and your > energy indicates a big passion for life. I'm guessing you'd be a > righteous dude if you notched up your information banks. > > You almost certainly won't end up agreeing with me on many things, but > we'll both be on the same page in terms of "what's what." But, if, > for instance, you don't think that there's 30,000 toxic dump sites in > the USA that are pumping our aquifers with poisons, then that's a fact > that can be disputed, but if you're unwilling to even examine the > facts, then you're being intellectually worthless. > > But most of all, I want you to respond about the concept Big Money's > moral culpability for the human misery on the planet. > > Shemp, consider this a love letter. > > Edg > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html > > > > > > > > > Good! > > > > Now we'll have some balance to the 10s of billions of dollars spent > > annually with the express purpose of trying to fraudulently prove that > > there IS catastrophic man-made global warming. > > >
