Search This Blog

Thursday, July 27, 2006

How to Spot a Troll **Updated!**


Who? Me?!?


Recently I have come across the phenomenon of Trolls calling other people "Trolls" because those people had the gall to call them Trolls for acting like Trolls.

That is as confusing as it reads, so I though I would write some pointers for people to spot a Troll, especially if the Troll is you. People far better than me have written on this before, but allow me my take.

Hopefully, for those encountering Trolls, this will save you time and aggravation by avoiding someone who is a humongous waste of your time.

For those who are Trolls, this might help explain why despite your unparalleled genius, keen debating skills and ability to post faster that you read, people still think you are a wanker.

I will add to this as more occur to me. Feel free to offer your own suggestions.


SIGNS OF THE TROLL

The Screen Name Pun


A Troll will often reveal himself early when he makes some sort of snide comment on or pun of your screen name. While most everyone will be tempted to mock someone’s screen name during a tense argument online, a Troll grabs that bait like a Great White grabs chum-covered surfers. Usually, a Troll who is challenged will go for the screen name taunt within 2-3 exchanges. If really spooked, they’ll use it right off the bat.

Examples : “So, Wearing Me Out…”

“Tell me, Wears Garters, what do you…”

“You mean to tell me, Wear’s Your Brain…”

Free Throwing

A friend a mine once likened people who try to participate in a conversation without actually listening to anyone to a spectator at a Knicks game shooting free-throws from the stands. You can spot a Troll easy when they make a comment which is at best tangential to the flow of the ongoing conversation or post. It may be a single line, or a mighty manifesto, but in both cases you are straining to understand its relevance to the ongoing discussion.

Example: On thread dealing with drilling in ANWR, a poster pops in to state: “Of course, if Bush were really serious about fixing illegal immigration, we wouldn’t need that much oil in the first place.”

Xeroxing

If someone copies and pastes their own words from one blog’s comment thread to an entirely other blog’s comment thread, red flags should go up. It bespeaks of someone who is trying to disseminate their viewpoint and “brilliance” rather than actually, you know, engaging in a conversation. It’s sorta innovative in that it’s like mobile blogging, but ultimately it is annoying and Trollish.

Example : Poster writes: “I left a comment on Bloggerama that I think was so brilliant, you guys should have chance to read it as well.”

Verbating

There is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting material relevant to your point from whatever source (except if you're quoting you. See Xeroxing). In fact, it’s a great ability in an online forum. However, Trolls often go overboard. Instead of quoting a small portion, and linking to the original, they feel the need to put whole sections in a comment thread. This serves a couple of purposes. One, Trolls likely feel that larger quotations are more impressive than smaller ones. Two, Trolls believe that making you read a whole bunch of stuff will make you tired, sap your will and make you more likely to either succumb to their will or give up entirely. I mean, they know you have a life and job to get back to, which is your weakness.

Example : “Let me give you a quote from Moby Dick I found on page 93:

‘Call me Ishmael…’ ”

The Catch Phrase

While everyone has a favorite turn of phrase, like all good things, moderation is called for. When something is not so good to begin with, you really should drop it after the first use. Not so for Trolls, where repetition just makes it better every single time. Someone who keeps using the same phrase, particularly one of their own creation, could very well be a Troll.

Example : Well, if you Wankers of War…I would think that Wankers of War like yourself… Hail the Wankers of War!…Wanking off on your War, War Wankers?!?

Mind Reading

Some Trolls apparently think they can read your mind, knowing what you must have been thinking when you posted, rather than actually reading what you wrote when you posted. Surprisingly, they usually find out that you were a racist, fascist, homophobe, etc., and you didn’t even know it! Sometimes its pretty overt, and sometimes more subtle, but the bottom line is it’s an attempt to get you to really understand what your are all about. I also think it is a way for Trolls to write politically incorrect statements and get way with it.

Example : “The Third World is not full of the ignorant mud-people you think it is!"

Kettle Calling

As in, "Pot Calling Kettle Black". A Troll has a highly developed skill for projection of their behavior onto others. As I mentioned at the very top of this post, the most simple form is to call someone a Troll,, even when they're the one acting like a wanker. It also comes down to specific accusations, such as lambasting someone for resorting to insults after they have spent numerous posts calling people names, using the Screen Name Pun and say, questioning their intelligence.

A curious subset of this I have seen is the homophobic, gay-rights Troll. On several occasions when I was engaged in an online debate, I had people trot out the "right-wing, rethuglican gay basher" themes against me. At the same time, after they became completely frustrated when they were losing the argument, they began to insinuate I was gay and used stereotypical language to do so. No one out and out called me a "faggot" or "fruit", but I was told I was a mincing or shrieking pansy, must love show tunes, was getting boned by my boyfriend, etc. I once had this kind of crap thrown at me by a woman claiming to be a liberal and a lesbian! Pointing out the, uh, irony of this was, no pun intended, fruitless.

Oh, and the most telling thing was that of all the other left-wing progressives posting in those threads, I think ONE called the gay-baiters on it. ONE. That says much more than the random spittle of cranks, doesn't it?

Example: Not sure I need one after the preceding paragraph

** Update : Here's a great example
of the Homophobic progressive that Jeff Goldstein encountered at Protein Wisdom.

The Hypocritic Oaf

While other catagories may contain elements of hypocrisy, it deserves its own catagory when it comes to Trolls. Why? Because Trolls are acutely aware of any whiff of hypocrisy in those with which they disagree, but have absolutely NO concept of it when it relates to themselves or those that agree with them. A Troll can make statement in a thread, and in the following post, they can write something completely at odds with their previous statement. Pointing this out, even quoting their own words, have absolutely no effect on them. Think of them as Hypocrisy Vampires or Werewolves; they can't be harmed by normal means.

Example : Post 1 "I don't think terrorism is really a big problem at all. It's been hyped to keep people scared."

Post 2 "Thanks to Bush's "War on Terror", the threat from terrorism has only gotten worse. If something happens, and it will, Bush is at fault."

Raging Against the Machine

This should be bloody obvious, but I added it anyway. Anyway who pops in to tell everyone and/or the host to "'eff off!", or to do something unnatural to themselves or otherwise calls them a "*$&%@" or a "$%&!*", is a Troll. True, if you were to see them in person, they would more resemble a angry, sputtering dwarf of ancient European legend, but they are still a Troll.

What's usually funny about these guys is that they usually communicate their sputtering well if nothing else. You can see them getting so animated that someone challenged their precious dogma, but are so frustrated that they have none of the ability, patience, intelligence or knowledge to argue their point. No matter what they write, its like reading:

"AAAAARGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"


21 comments:

Bookworm said...

Thank goodness! Now I have a name for those pesky little blog buggers.

Jason H. Bowden said...

This is a classic post. Great job, Weary!

skeptikwon said...

If you don't have the courage to argue your point with people of different views, then waht is the point of your blog.

There are too many of these self congratulatory echo chambers now. It only reinforces stereotypical misinformation. There is too much hate being peddled and little debate. Opeds are replacing hard factual news at a time when we need it most.

skeptikwon said...

The correspondent above is a case in point. I watched his blog and his reaction when another poster tried to engage him in debate.

He wasn't able to argue despite putting some very hateful spite ridden nonsense up and was reduced to silly name calling and then banning. A typical hate filled coward.

Weary G said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Weary G said...

"If you don't have the courage to argue your point with people of different views, then waht is the point of your blog."

Skeptikwon,

What's the point of visiting and commenting on a blog if you are not going to read the posts and comprehend what the person is saying?

Trolls, by internet definition, are not interested in discussing or really even arguing issues. They want to rant and rave and make a nuisance of themselves. Typically they are trying to shut down conversation rather than engaging in or encouraging in it.

Having different ideas is fine, but a person better be prepared to argue for them and back them up. If all they can do is repeat the same hackneyed phrases and ignore whatever you post in response to counter, then what exactly is the point of that? Is that not a complete waste of time?

If you had read the post I wrote, and if you visit blogs as often as you suggest, you should know what a Troll does and that courage has nothing to do with engaging them, because they are, as you put it, their own little echo chamber.

Thanks for posting.

Weary G said...

The correspondent above is a case in point. I watched his blog and his reaction when another poster tried to engage him in debate.

He wasn't able to argue despite putting some very hateful spite ridden nonsense up and was reduced to silly name calling and then banning. A typical hate filled coward."


I'm sorry, I am not sure what this has to do with me. You want me to attack/defend the blog of another poster on this board? How about arguing about something I wrote. I might be in a little better position to argue that.

You wrote this previously:

"There are too many of these self congratulatory echo chambers now. It only reinforces stereotypical misinformation. There is too much hate being peddled and little debate. Opeds are replacing hard factual news at a time when we need it most."

You made two basic accusations criticisms of me (I thought):

1) It is "stereotypical misinformation"
2) It is "hate" and there is too little debate

Yet, you give me no citations of these things from my blog, basically making unsubstantiated charges. Nothing for me to even debate. In a subsequent post, you point to someone else's blog as substantiation of your claim. So, am I not the one you have a problem with?

I had another poster, anonymous, who made similar accusations of Neo-Neocon. When I asked said person to give me evidence, links, quotes to back up his accusations, he never got back to me. He just wanted to spew, make slanderous comments, and leave. That is the troll-like behaviour I was speaking of in the other post you commented on.

Now, here you come, making accusations of me (I think), of being a hate-monger and spreader of disinformation without anything to back it up.

Now, if you did NOT mean me, please say so. If you DID mean me, please substantiate your assertions so we can engage in this debate you seem so anxious to have. If you do neither, then please don't come back.

If I seem curt, I am. Sorry, but I do not have a lot of time to waste. I have no problem engaging in honest debate, but it needs to be that; honest.

Thanks.

skeptikwon said...

I was actually talking about the Jason guy above that responded in particular, but I was generalizing also, about how these blogs are adding to a disconnection from reality.

That disconnect is most evident on blogs that are supposedly troll wary.

It is funny that you mention neoneocon. There is at least one goon there that sends e-mail threats that are possibly illegal and could be subject to federal felony charges.

Anyway, I won't be bothering you any more. Only a certain number of waking hours in a day and you and I are from different planets I suspect.

Weary G said...

I was actually talking about the Jason guy above that responded in particular, but I was generalizing also, about how these blogs are adding to a disconnection from reality.

For disconnection from reality, one did not need to go to blogs; we had the MSM. The reason blogs have become popular is that MSM has been filtering and distorting reality for decades. Blogs, with all their faults, were a way to bypass the gatekeepers. Nomatter where you are politically, you HAVE to agree with that, no? Power to the people?

That disconnect is most evident on blogs that are supposedly troll wary.

I assume that's at least a partial swipe at me. Sokay. I'm used to it, which is why I wrote the "How to Spot a Troll" post in the first place.

Think what you want. I know what a Troll is, and what it does, and I do not suffer them gladly.

It is funny that you mention neoneocon. There is at least one goon there that sends e-mail threats that are possibly illegal and could be subject to federal felony charges.

There is alot of that going around, you know. And if they send such truly disturbing emails, you SHOULD report them. I don't condone any such behaviour.

Anyway, I won't be bothering you any more. Only a certain number of waking hours in a day and you and I are from different planets I suspect.

That's too bad. Differences aside, you seemed a decent person.

As for being from different planets, that's the idea of having a conversation; to bridge gaps. Sorry you are not up for it.

Take care and thanks for posting.

skeptikwon said...

_As for being from different planets, that's the idea of having a conversation; to bridge gaps. Sorry you are not up for it. _


No offence, but having read your essays on Gaza and Lebanon, I think your perception of the situation in the middle east and my knowledge (garnered from many working visits over the past 20 years) are so far apart, that you would almost certainly accuse me of trolldom. :-)

I like the arabs, they are (generally) genuinely friendly welcoming and curious people and I doubt whether you have any genuine appreciation of what we as westerners have done to them over the last century or so.

The prevailing proIsraeli view in the US is quite wrong in my view and I find the antiIslamic slant in the media and the blogs, both disturbing and factually lacking. Certainly it is counterproductive if our aim is to create peace and security.

The killing in Iraq, Gaza, the West bank and Lebanon will not help us, but most assuredly will create a new generation of suicide bombers and airline hijackers.

We've achieved weakness through our perceived strength. Olmert and Peretz are displaying their weakness of character and exposing their lack of an identifiable ambition.

Stronger, smarter men would be trying to achieve peace, not recycling the mistakes of a deadly past.

Weary G said...

Skeptikwon,

Let me give a general response and then let's see if we can concentrate on 1 issue at a time, to make things a little easier to manage.

If I may say so, you make alot of assumptions, which for all your experience, maybe clouds your perceptions as well.

For one, where did you read in anything I wrote that I don't like "the Arabs"? You imply so with your "I like the Arabs" comment. I like them so much that I don't want them to live under tyranny and oppression, and I think they, like all human beings, deserve liberty and basic human rights.

What I don't like are terrorists and thugs amd tyrants whether their names are Momar Mohammed or Mickey O'Shea. If I write acidly or mockingy or angrily about terrorists who are Arabs that does not mean I do not like Arabs.

As far as what we westerners have done to them over the years, I know not all of it has been good. Granted. I know of colonialism, I know of the arbitrary partition of the region to suit European interests, and I know of the interference of the US in the region over the years, supporting tyrants or toppling rulers when they were not friendly enough. Perhaps you have heard President Bush when he has stated, more than once, that such a policy was flawed and wrong.

However, the implication I sense from you (and granted I am basing this partly on similar sentiments from others) is that the West is solely responsible for the state Arabs find themselves. Not only do I think that is seriously incorrect, but it undermines the ability for the people and the region to move forward.

If the Arabs (rather a collective term for so varied peoples and cultures but lets go with it) are to move beyond the misery and deprivation they are in, there are going to have to accept some responsibility for it.

I cannot be sure, but I do not think perhaps you see the whole picture of that region. Your views seems (perhaps I am wrong) to be that the region have been continual, innocent victims to an indifferent West.

I know that at times the US has supported Arabs interests over that of our Allies and even our own. You remember how the Suez crisis played out?

I also know that various Arab powers and factions have supported our mortal enemies, from the Nazis to the Soviets.

The history of the Middle East is indeed complex, and it needs to be taken as a whole if we are going to examine the issues.

The prevailing proIsraeli view in the US is quite wrong in my view and I find the antiIslamic slant in the media and the blogs, both disturbing and factually lacking. Certainly it is counterproductive if our aim is to create peace and security.

Sorry, but you are going to have to give me examples of pro-Israeli and particularly anti-Islamic slant here, because my perception is that is generally the opposite. The media is very much into the moral equivalance thing when it comes to Israel and its terrorist tormenters, and the media tends to pussyfoot or ignore the darker side of some Islamic groups, societies and acts.

The killing in Iraq, Gaza, the West bank and Lebanon will not help us, but most assuredly will create a new generation of suicide bombers and airline hijackers.

We've achieved weakness through our perceived strength. Olmert and Peretz are displaying their weakness of character and exposing their lack of an identifiable ambition.

Stronger, smarter men would be trying to achieve peace, not recycling the mistakes of a deadly past.


Okay, for the first two topics, why don't we take the slant thing, and, based on the immediately proceeding, what is YOUR plane for achieving peace, REAL PEACE, in the region.

I don't mean to be rude when I say I do not want to hear platitudes. Tell me what you would do to bring peace, and enable all those in Middle East to live together in harmony, and to end terrorism.

I am ready to be convinced because I would love the killing to stop, and I would love to stop worrying about the Armaggedon I think we're heading toward. Oh, that isn't a worry based on some Evangelical belief, but on a knowledge of history which tells me which way this is heading.

skeptikwon said...

_ examples of pro-Israeli and particularly anti-Islamic slant _

terrorists and thugs

Just for one.

There are so many facets to your post, that establish a partisan position that you will defend without even knowing it I suspect.

The linguistics of political discussion today are so distorted that neutral ground is almost impossible to achieve.

If you are to describe all opponents of Israel as terrorists and thugs, no genuine discussion will occur. And that, is where your media has become so confounded and embedded in the propaganda of the powers that be. It isn't honest or right. It's just childish.

"Terrorist", "antisemitic" or the ludicrous "islamofascist" amongst a raft of other silly labels. All terms that shut down debate by confusing issues and conflating seperate realities.

As for "sole reason with regard to arab suffering". Straw man. No thanks. These sort of debating tactics are dishonest and very boring.

Read your Gaza essay again and tell me you aren't antiPalestinian at the very least. I have trouble reading that and taking you seriously when you say you aren't antiarab.

Do you consider yourself a centrist?

Weary G said...

_ examples of pro-Israeli and particularly anti-Islamic slant _"

terrorists and thugs

Just for one.


Okay, I have two points here. One, a clarification.

When I asked about pro-Israel and anti-Islamic slant, and I primarily meant the media, as I am well aware, and we can agree, that the blogosphere is full of opinions and slants.

However, even then I think that the blogosphere has a wide breadth of opinion so to say it is slanted one way or the other is untrue. You got an opinion? You can find a blog/website to match it.

Of course, the blogosphere is also full of, as Al Gore might call them, inconvenient truths. Some of them are inconvenient to you, which might explain some of your issues with certain words seen below.

In any event, perhaps you could give me examples of your perceived slant from the media as a whole?

Two, what is slanted about calling terrorists and thugs, “terrorists” and “thugs”? If someone IS a terrorist, if they ACT like a terrorist, then how is calling them as such slanted? If someone walks into a pizzeria and blows themselves up, or cuts the head off civilians, or targets civilians areas with rockets as part of a terror campaign with political/ideological motivations, why is it a slant to call them a terrorist?

There are so many facets to your post, that establish a partisan position that you will defend without even knowing it I suspect.

Some examples would be nice, rather than general, ad hominem attacks.

The linguistics of political discussion today are so distorted that neutral ground is almost impossible to achieve.

First, I think you meant “the language of political discussion”. Second, you still give no examples, but merely more pontifications. What is distorted about the language again?

If you are to describe all opponents of Israel as terrorists and thugs, no genuine discussion will occur.

I never did that. Now, before you claim I did, I would rethink it, because I will then prove you wrong, embarrassing you in the process. Dare I say you are distorting my position?

And that, is where your media has become so confounded and embedded in the propaganda of the powers that be. It isn't honest or right. It's just childish.

Ok, so since you mentioned it again, can you actually give me examples of MEDIA slant and propaganda that is pro-Israel and anti-Islamic?

"Terrorist", "antisemitic" or the ludicrous "islamofascist" amongst a raft of other silly labels.

I do not think they are silly labels to their victims whether they be in Tel Aviv, the London underground, downtown Manhattan, Spain, Iraq, Turkey, Bali, Malaysia, Jordan, etc.

Tell me, is the word “terrorist” an anachronism? Is there no such thing?

All terms that shut down debate by confusing issues and conflating seperate realities.

This is interesting. You first try to declare certain words completely invalid for use, and then claim I am trying to shut down debate. Seems to me that trying to curtail the discussion, trying to render some concepts or terms completely invalid form the get go is an attempt to do just that.

I understand why, btw. It gets difficult to defend things like terrorism and anti-Semiticism when it’s laid bare, no matter your sympathies. I mean, it’s impossible to say you defend or support terrorists or fascists, and then be taken seriously. Better to remove those terms from the lexicon or render their meanings meaningless, so as to not have to defend them in all their ugly horror.

As for "sole reason with regard to arab suffering". Straw man. No thanks. These sort of debating tactics are dishonest and very boring.

You write:

If you are to describe all opponents of Israel as terrorists and thugs, no genuine discussion will occur.

And you accuse me of using a straw man? Pot to kettle, my good man.

Oh, and dishonest and boring? Pots on line 2.

Oh, and by invoking the “straw man” here, you are implicitly admitting that Arabs DO bear some responsibility for their current state. Care to lay out what your think where they need to do better? Where they have been failing themselves?

Read your Gaza essay again and tell me you aren't antiPalestinian at the very least. I have trouble reading that and taking you seriously when you say you aren't antiarab.

No, YOU read it again and give me examples of how you think it makes me anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian. I believe that the term for this is, “Put up or shut up.”

Do you consider yourself a centrist?

No. And I never claimed to be. I guess I would be considered right-center, depending. What I solidly consider myself is anti-terrorist and anti-fascist and pro-liberty. Yeah, I know, silly labels, right?

Taking your entire response in its entirety it seems to me that you are disengaging rather than engaging. You like making all sorts of accusations, but are reluctant to actually back them up. You take all sorts of positions, but seem ready to run rather than defend them.

I notice that you completely ignored the “How would you bring about peace in the Middle East?” This is what you call a pattern.

The pattern is one of continual criticism and disparagement without anything to back it up. You provide little, if any, examples to prove or even illustrate your “points”. You constantly criticize ideas and policies without ever offering alternatives.

So, to prove to me that you are in anyway serious, ignore ALL the questions I asked you, and answer this one question first:

“what is YOUR plane for achieving peace, REAL PEACE, in the region.

I don't mean to be rude when I say I do not want to hear platitudes. Tell me what you would do to bring peace, and enable all those in Middle East to live together in harmony, and to end terrorism.”

If you can’t even answer this, I know we are done.

Weary G said...

BTW, I am serious about the last part. I have no desire to chase you around the rhetorical table. Please answer my last question before we go on to discuss anything else.

skeptikwon said...

Well, that is a very big question, to which there clearly is no definitive answer/

Israel must recognize a) the FACT that their neighbours have legitimate grievances arising from 1948 and 1967 and beyond and that they also have the right to self defence and security.
b) they must submit to the rule of international law and recognize that their own security is dependent on a degree of justice for all people in the region.
c) they must retreat to the pre1967 borders and bargain in good faith.

I've no idea how that can happen when the US is so obviously captured by Israeli propaganda and continues to give them everything they want and overtly supports them in their military adventurism.

"Islamofascism" is the stuff of nonsense. It makes no sense.

I meant "linguistics" not language.

"Freedom and democracy" in your sense means I suspect, friendly to America/Israel. They have no reason to trust you and the current killing is anomylous to this statement.

All your positions come from a propagandized version of history and an inability to empathize.

As I said, you and I are on different planets here. I've seen how the Israelis treat nonJews and I know what they've offered the Palestinians whilst telling the US public something totally different. These people are conducting a violent oppression and stealing their land. Make no mistake. I've seen it. You can't tell me it isn't happening.

If you genuinely wish to see how the media is skewed toward Israel, you could start by looking at this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696

Do you wonder what all this violence is achieving? I see your post on the alleged hijacking plot where you say there has been no US action against muslims for 9/11. Are you serious? How many people have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza since then in your GWOT?

That is a stunning statement.

Weary G said...

sigh...

As I said, you and I are on different planets here.

I don't think its nearly as complicated as all that. I do believe the problem is that you can't read.

You wrote:

"I see your post on the alleged hijacking plot where you say there has been no US action against muslims for 9/11. Are you serious? How many people have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza since then in your GWOT?

Which is a misrepresentation of what I wrote, and in addition not really related to the point I was making. So, you either did not read my post with full comprehension, or you chose not to in order to play some sort of game. I told you before; I don't have time for games.

I'm gonna take the weekend off from responding to you. Why don't you do the same, and on Monday, if you can identify where your mistake was, and respond to what I actually wrote, we can continue.

If you can't (or won't) I can safely conclude that you either do not have the ability to continue an actual debate, or the interest.

Again, if I seem curt, it's for a reason. I am beginning to suspect this is a waste of time.

Have a good weekend.

skeptikwon said...

You are extraordinarily arrogant.

This is what you wrote.

"Despite hysterical rhetoric to the contrary, there was no widespread, or even appreciable, backlash against Middle Easterners and Muslims, citizens or otherwise, in the US after 9/11"

Note the or otherwise. I can read, and I can see where the confusion comes from without being rude.

Anyway, I took your advice and reread your Gaza thing. I wish now that I'd read it before commenting. I read some ugly antiJew stuff on arab sites that make me cringe. Your essay is on a par with those..

The only difference is that you have no excuse. It is your country doing most of the killing and destroying.

I sincerely hope you wake up one day and see what you and many of your countrymen have become. I imagine Germany in the 30s was similar.

skeptikwon said...

Ah sorry, I just realized you are a woman. My apologies.

Weary G said...

"Ah sorry, I just realized you are a woman. My apologies."

Ah, no, that wasn't it. Even though I highlighted the passage I was talking about, you still did not get it, but focused on something else entirely and irrelevant.

Skeptikwon, let me ask you something and please do not take this as an insult because it is not meant to be. Is English not your first language? If not, that is fine, but it would explain a few things, and I could make allowances for it.

If that this NOT the case, then I am left with two other possibilities at this point:

One, you are being a smart-ass, and a serious discussion is not in the offing here, or

Two, for whatever other reason, there is a clear lack of comprehension with what I write, which also precludes a serious conversation about it. It would be kinda like having a debate on cell phones where the reception sucks.

Weary G said...

My last response on this thread is posted on the main body of this blog. I consider this current thread dead.

Anonymous said...

I've never read a more condescending response based on nothing more than an inability to have any understanding of an issue except from a fanatical pro-Israel perspective in my life(and that's saying something considering how many pro-Israel zealots there are).

WearyG you are a case study in right-wing denial my friend.