Re: TROLL is a HATE terminology

[Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com>]

If the definition of troll is what wiki gives that it applies not on
me but on those who have written replies that never pertained to the
original "subject" of the thread. "no obligation" is not an argument,
because in any communication if there is a partial reply it should be
finished by "i am ending communication" or "i will continue
communication" otherwise the other person is left hanging.

Even a simple communication protocol like TCP/IP requires these
elements. Thien-Thi gave a partial reply and then no reply. he could
say this is all i can do, so some others could continue. These are
just basic manners. while the professor Turnbull came and use the verb
trolling which did not contribute to the subject of the thread also.

There are two more people who have indicated that the term troll is
used from the context on hating or is no argument. I use apropos and
existing facilites of help a lot and have my own special shortcuts for
them as well as the elisp manual.

Maybe, you could have replied to the other technical thread (subject:
... verbosity ...) also than writing this long essay on this one.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 14:03, Fren Zeee wrote:
>> Thats why your post (later i realized ... a private email) made me
>> think and it was a eureka moment to realize what troll stood for and I
>> expressed it clearly. Other authors above have said that they could
>> not understand this vague term whose true meaning is only known by its
>> context of usage. I thank them for their contribution and testimonial.
>>
>> Because it has no dictionary meaning, it continued to be used
>> effectively by dark forces to denigrade people. My post should help
>> label it as what it really is.
>
> Depends on your dictionary, I guess.  See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) or http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll or other sources.  Wikipedia says trolling is use of "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting the normal on-topic discussion"; the term derives from a fishing technique (and according to Wikipedia, the term for the same type of Internet persona in other languages also often derives from fishing terms).  It was used in response to your remarks on Thien-Thi's not continuing to provide you with help: "He has disappeared or refusing to show up. probably this nourishes the ego of such geeks."  In my limited experience, "trolls" are usually a bit more off-topic, not really interested in learning anything, but such an ad-hominem remark is characteristic; perhaps in other corners of the Internet the term is applied a little differently.  Regardless, I don't see it as "hate terminology", especially in the verb form, but as a description of observed actions, especially if there is a pattern to the behavior.  On the other hand, the way you use "geek" sounds rather derogatory; I find your statement at least as offensive as the label of "troll", perhaps in part because you're labeling the person, while the label "trolling" was applied to your actions on these mailing lists.
>
> (As to the question of a pattern, "hating those who need help by those who got some chance via university or company courses --- all ultimately from tax payer money to learn" also seems intended to provoke, to me.)
>
> Please remember, this is a volunteer effort; you don't have a support contract, no one is being paid to help you, and no one owes it to you.  Perhaps Thien-Thi is busy with his day job, or family matters, or illness, or something else that's quite reasonably more important to him than teaching you about Emacs Lisp programming.  Perhaps he doesn't mind answering a question now and then but doesn't want to be cast as your regular tutor.  I don't know, and for the most part it doesn't really matter.  It's not his job, and he didn't have to reply to you in the first place.  I see no reason to suspect he's intentionally "withholding" anything from you.
>
> Many people on these lists *want* to help, when they can, based on knowledge, available time, etc.  But they also expect some things of you, for example: that you communicate clearly what you're asking (and I've seen cases before where reasonable people have significantly different communication styles, or too little common ground between them, or different ways of thinking about something, or just a fundamental misunderstanding that neither recognizes, such that it takes a lot of work for them to be able to communicate with each other effectively); that you don't ask a lot of questions already answered in published documentation, especially if you've already been referred to it; that you send questions only to the appropriate list (or, very rarely, lists, plural); that you be willing to look at a little code, or look through help file indexes (or for Emacs, use M-x apropros), or do some experiments to try to figure out how things work first (especially if you're asking on the developers list rather than the help list); that you not attack the people helping you, or insist that they owe you more help than they're giving.  I'm not saying you haven't done these things; I haven't paid that much attention, and don't have time to.  But you might ask yourself whether you have, or whether people seem to think you haven't.
>
> Then again, the developers list is not primarily focused on helping people learn their way around Emacs, and learn to program in Emacs Lisp.  Unlike on the "help" lists, that's not primarily why people join.  Insisting that they answer all your questions isn't likely to be well received.
>
> Please have a little more respect for the people trying to help out here, even if they can't help you as much as you might like, and more tolerance for the occasionally abrasive ones.  More than you think they're showing you, if possible.
>
> Ken