Ausfalcon said:
Its bad form to call someone a troll unless one honestly feels they meet a generally accepted definition of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll Obviously many people over several continents and cultures, over various online coummuties, over years, agree about Mike. That said, you don't need to of course.
|
According to the defintion, you have to prove that he has "the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
This is HIS thread. You guys are the ones that are disrupting the "normal on-topic discussion" in this thread with your attacks on his character.
By definition, you and others have identified yourselves as "Internet trolls". Mike B just seems to be trying to educate you through factual information. THAT'S what seems to have some of you guys in an uproar. This is like HD DVD tactics all over again. They get you so emotionally attached to a belief that you fight off facts like your lives depend on it.
The point is...NO one should try to attack a person's character as a method of discrediting information brought forth. To do so is to be cult-ish in nature. If you can't prove the information backed up with multiple credible sources to be false with MORE credible sources, just leave it alone or accept it. THIS is the nature of science.
