| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Definition of a troll? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 7 2008, 01:02 PM (201 Views) | |
| hamba | Jul 7 2008, 01:02 PM Post #1 |
|
So I have been banished to the skeptics forum. For being a troll. What is the definition of a troll? Someone who encites reaction? My opinions are in contrast to the majority opinion on this forum, so it stands to reason what ever I say will encite a reaction. I have been a member here for a while, but only recently got access to a decent internet connection. Hence the surge in my activity over the aspt week. I was a member of the old LCF. Feel free to go over there and have a look. My name was Hamba. Terral will have fond memeories of me as I systematically destroyed all his A-3 theories and missiles travelling at Mach 12. The outcome of that debate had positive results for the truth movement as well. Terral was destructive to the truth movement. I moved to a different province (I guess the US equivalence is moving to another state) in November 2007. It has taken me that long to get a decent internet connection. Prior to that all I had access to was the Gprs cellphone network. And this site for some reason took forever to load. Hence my absence. SO I was banished here because I chose to challenege someone on a technical claim which I found problematic. I requested the poster to post proof to the reasoning behind his theory. This is common scientific practice in any debate. I have read what he said and it makes a valid point, which bears closer examination. All theories need to be vigourously questioned and examined so that the final theory can be generally accepted as valid. This is how every famous theory has stood the test of time. To avoid closer examination is to run the risk of publishing untested theories which can result in total embarresment. Look-up hits the nail on the head, when he says opposition to theories has resulted in refinement and perfection of theories. Imagine if Terral took his Mach 12 missile theory to a court of law. He would have been run out of there by a thousand laughs. All theories need opposition, otherwise nothing substantial can be developed. I guess my confrontational tone does upset sensitive viewers. Trust me if you spent 10 hours a day dealing with sub-contractors, consultants and clients who's sole aim is to screw the construction contractor out of every cent, you do develope a thick skin and do tend to be confrontational. I will tone this down. Yet, it doesn't appear as if much goes on in this subsection. |
 |
|
| look-up | Jul 7 2008, 01:32 PM Post #2 |
|
this is trolling:
that may be what got you confined to this section. I'll discuss it with the other admins... |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 7 2008, 02:53 PM Post #3 |
|
you should be able to post in other sections now. thread closed. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
12:25 PM Nov 23