Saw this and thought of this forum www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- ... 27n3f.html I love psychology and this is fascinating.

Saw this and thought of this forum www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- ... 27n3f.html I love psychology and this is fascinating.

So basically so long as she considers herself to be "funny" and not malicious, its OK to deliberately upset anybody and everybody she wants? Sounds like a depressing way to get your kicks to me.

She looks like Skeletor from he man

Don't they all?



Don't they all?

There's trolling, and there's trolling.

People like Dally, and er, others, who get a kick out of putting across a point of view that is going to get someone's back up. You say it's white, so they say it's black, kind of thing.

Then there is posting hateful remarks about someone who's ill, dead, of another race etc, which is clearly unacceptable.

Agreed. I'd suggest that what the report talks about is not 'tolling', but bullying/abuse.

People like her in the article having something seriously missing from their lives.

Watched a really good programme on Richard Bacon recently. He tried to track down some trolls and in particular one that was really stalking him. He said he used to laugh it off until the trolls started on his wife and newborn baby and thats when he started to get angry about it. He confronted some other trolls who said they did it for a laugh and didn't expect the recipients to be upset. Yeah right



I've never pretended to be anyone other than me on the internet, most of you know my real name and thats really me next to Danny Houghton in my avatar. Same on FB, I don't see the point in pretending to be someone I'm not.

Most trolls do it for a reaction anyway, so if anyone responds I answer with the usual "Don't feed the troll".

Theres someone on here who we all know who is a totally different person off RL Fans. Its like he has a split personality, one for the Sin Bin one for "real life".

If someone punched her in the face and said it was performance art, would they get away with it?

I'm worse im real life for winding people up than on the internet, i like a little banter but i usually expect a bit back.

Bullying is bullying, no point making up a different name for it.

You're all smelly and you have rubbish names......

I strongly suspect that people who are not regular users of forums such as this don't understand what "trolling" actually is.

This is reinforced by a few high profile incidents in the last year where the meeja have deemed certain people "trolls" when in fact they were not trolling, but being either abusive, bullying, or deliberately offensive. Which is not to say trolling can't also be any of those things, as well as trolling.

It becomes rapidly clear that some people who are not seasoned internet users have picked up on the word and hijacked it to their own meanings. So you get items on main news broadcasts, where as an aside they define "troll" for those who don't understand the term, but are clearly not using the term correctly.

To have a proper debate about communications in electronic media surely we should start with a position where there is a definition of what it is we are supposed to be discussing?

So every one must have the same view on every subject? To comment when you see how misguided and indoctrinated many people are is not trolling.

Dally's not a troll. He has controversial views and most of them are out of the Daily Mail but so what? I've never seen Dally be rude or personally insulting to other posters on here but you see that from other posters. Also lots of other posters gang up on Dally and he deals with it without becoming bad tempered.

"abusive, bullying, or deliberately offensive"


Has no-one ever seen examples of that on here? Really?

Change the word "contraversial" to the words "views that are different to my". Because that's all it is.

I find it fascinating that the bloke who is labelled Right Wing is far more placid and less aggressive than those who perhaps hold views from people who would be labelled Left Wing. Blows the labelling stereotypes out of the water does that.

Yes the problem on here is some of the better educated posters pick on people that can't defend themselves and make a sport out of making them look stupid. You're never going to win someone over to your argument if you make them feel like they are humiliated. A lot of the time people with misguided views have just not been in possession of all the facts so its better to show them your argument and let them learn rather than make them feel like you've got one up on them for proving them wrong.

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Yes the problem on here is some of the better educated posters pick on people that can't defend themselves and make a sport out of making them look stupid. You're never going to win someone over to your argument if you make them feel like they are humiliated. A lot of the time people with misguided views have just not been in possession of all the facts so its better to show them your argument and let them learn rather than make them feel like you've got one up on them for proving them wrong.'" Yes, I've witnessed people automatically take an ascended POV on things and simply rubbish someone. Shame really as it gets in the way of a decent debate. Though I personally, don't buy into your term "better educated". There is one expression I once heard in psychology. There is a difference between being confident and being arrogant. Arrogant people feel the need to belittle, ridicule and minimise others in a bid to hide their own insecurities. Think about that when you read the way people post. Just do a quick search for "difference between arrogance and confidence" www.communicationconfidence.com/ ... gance.html

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Yes the problem on here is some of the better educated posters pick on people that can't defend themselves and make a sport out of making them look stupid. You're never going to win someone over to your argument if you make them feel like they are humiliated. A lot of the time people with misguided views have just not been in possession of all the facts so its better to show them your argument and let them learn rather than make them feel like you've got one up on them for proving them wrong.'" Yes, I've witnessed people automatically take an ascended POV on things and simply rubbish someone. Shame really as it gets in the way of a decent debate. Though I personally, don't buy into your term "better educated". There is one expression I once heard in psychology. There is a difference between being confident and being arrogant. Arrogant people feel the need to belittle, ridicule and minimise others in a bid to hide their own insecurities. Think about that when you read the way people post. Just do a quick search for "difference between arrogance and confidence" www.communicationconfidence.com/ ... gance.html

What a bewildering question. Are you suggesting someone claimed no-one had ever seen examples of these?

Bugger, I'm failing in my mission then.

Nope.

I link to articles in the Daily Mail because it is easily accessible and they tend to post articles ahead of other online newspapers. I do not derive my views from the Daily Mail though, my views are the product of a working class, Northern upbring. I would not say my views are controversial (outside the confines of the 'world' seemingly inhabited by a few of the more talkative on this forum.

I do not normally resort to bad tempered personal abuse for reasons including (a) I do not feel threatened by the opinions of others. Why should I? Why should any sane individual in the UK?; (b) I do not use alcohol as a crutch to help me hobble through the day; and (c) I was brought up not to make fun of those less able than me and to be humble.

Anyone who uses alcohol as a crutch will invariably fall over.

I can't make up my mind whether Rooster and Dally are tolling.