On the other hand it's not very difficult to spot a troll on a religion forum. It's the poster who posts that religious views are extreme.

No that's trolling just as posts calling Maths abjectly stupid on the SMP forum would be trolling.

Not if they're untrue. It doesn't follow that whatever is said about you applies to me !

It was an open-ended request to which there is no quick sensible answer. Iirc it was something like "Quantify how much you should respect others."

It's relative to the length of the post obv.

Your alternative lexicon is quite interesting. We've seen a post in SMP about the obsolescence of philosophy:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...-dead-1039563/

But that thread was not trolling. The outright rejection of one of the stated topics of discussion does not on its own qualify as trolling.

And since you seem relatively unable to discern sarcasm and hyperbole, we can reduce this particular discussion to the obsolescence of religion or something similar if you're merely objecting to tone.

And FWIW, I wouldn't see a post that argues for the abject stupidity trolling UNLESS the person failed to make a cogent argument in the post. To me, that's where the trolling begins. Pre-judging a post as a troll merely on the basis of the underlying position is representative of closed-mindedness. Judging a post on the basis of the quality of the articulation of the position leads one to to conclude trolling.

On what basis can one measure the truth of your claims? You want to say that your claims about yourself are true ("I respect religion") but when I ask you to elaborate, you refuse. Why do you have a position of authority on truth?

This is what I said:

I believe that I can accuse you of misrepresenting what I said. I make no claim that the misrepresentation is willful, merely that what you have claimed I said is not consistent with what I actually said. Do you agree?

You have an opinion of yourself, and I was seeking some form of clarification as to the basis upon which you have reached your conclusion.

Notice that you've once again failed to explain yourself. What parts of the "it" were inaccurate?

1)
2)
3)
Can you please explain to me what you think I've misrepresented?

You might be confusing cwoc with your ability to refer to actual previous posts (perhaps he thinks they disappear and cannot be verified, or there is something wrong with his Pg Up key?).

e.g.
Such willful disregard for honest dialogue...

Stop trolling.

You should observe the same etiquette as that of a conversation. What was said a long time ago should not be dragged up again.

My wiki quote was a joke. It does not matter whether evolution is called a theory or something else. Avogadro's hypothesis is also called Avogadro's law.

It is indeed lemon.

Maybe. But in the end...

What of the things that have been said in this thread? Are those fair game for criticism? Or are those things also "a long time ago"?

I think you'll find "a long time" is an elastic term that roughly encompasses any post Cwoc made previously, the content of which he now finds inconvenient.

What part of Maths didn't you understand ?.

So I troll and you use sarcasm and hyperbole. It sounds inconsistent to me. I did object to the lack of courtesy and respect shown yes. Asking whether God or religion is necessary or relevant is perfectly valid but most of the posters go way beyond that.


Cogency is a subjective matter and by that yardstick I make you a super troll as you conflate, confuse and generally obfuscate in your posts.



This is an example of what I've just posted above. I am not asking you to measure truth I just gave an opinion.



I dunno it's so incoherent that it doesn't really make much sense. Why don't you express yourself more clearly ?


I don't see the point of this question. I endeavour to treat religious people with respect. That's all.

I can't be doing with your boring trolling nonsense any more so I'm taking a leaf out of your book and ignoring you. What's sauce for the goose eh ?

The s at the end.

Given the structure of the statement in question, philosophy works as a sufficient substitute for which there is an explicit example which demonstrates the that your position is not fully supportable by precedent.

I've not yet accused you of trolling. The matter of your ability to form a cogent position is still being explored. At this time, you're starting to construct a bubble around yourself in which you try to make yourself impervious to criticism. If you fully reach that point, I would determine that you're just a troll.

You're welcome to do this. In most social contexts, virtually all classification is a subjective matter. You have the full freedom to deem me to be whatever you choose, be it a super troll or just naive. Indeed, there are probably several posters in this thread who have deemed you to be a "super troll." You have not yet helped your case.

However, I did offer you the opportunity to present a more objective description of yourself which you could use to remove at least some of the subjectivity of the situation. However, since you failed to answer that question, you have not given yourself that opportunity.

So if we go back, you've merely asserted that "in your opinion" you have been "respectful" to the given topics. What can you give as evidence to support "your opinion" of yourself?

For many people, that would could as "providing a basis upon which to measure the truth of your claim." For example, if I declare myself to be "honest" (in my opinion), I could recount the time that the clerk gave me incorrect change, and I returned the extra money. Alternative, I could be challenged on that claim if someone points to the time that I found a wallet and took the money out before returning it.

I believe I have expressed myself sufficiently clearly for most people to understand. If you do not fall into that category, that's okay. Perhaps your grasp of the English language is lacking in some way.

But if you think it's incoherent, then if I tell you that you've misrepresented me, you should accept it. By telling me that my statement is incoherent, you are admitting an inability to understand what I said, and therefore you recognize that your attempt to characterize what I said is likely to be flawed.

Whether you understand the point of the question is irrelevant. Do you understand the question itself? If so, why don't you answer the question?

How do you decide whether you have succeeded?

You're welcome to ignore me.

If the mountain won't come to Mohammed...

A debate on semantic minutiae between Aaron and Cwoc.

What more could one want?

Indeed that's Aaron for you and that's why I gave up on him.

Just outed another fake atheist here

Fake atheist? Hmmm
So you are saying there's believers of faith or religion that pose as atheist?
What would that gained them?

This thread is proof that anarchy could never work: people refuse to self-police.

People complaining about people who may or may not be trolls - I may also recommend something that seems long lost in the first-world: patience. Why do you feel you need to participate in an imaginary tug of war? Does it momentarily fill your vapid life with purpose?

For all we know, some of these posters may have learning disabilities, and some of them may genuinely be misguided. A little patience will go further with these people, than moderation ever will. If you're short on patience and proud of it, then you always have the option to.....Ignore

I much prefer the current level of moderation, and I would always advocate for even less moderation. Original Position, you're doing a good job by me.